Lords Sitting of 24 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

LORD FRASER OF KILMORACK
Sir Richard Michael Fraser, Knight, C.B.E., having been created Baron Fraser of Kilmorack, of Rubislaw in the County of the City of Aberdeen, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Butler of Saffron Waiden and the Lord Boyle of Handsworth.
LORD WALLACE OF CAMPSIE
George Wallace, Esquire, having been created Baron Wallace of Campsie, of Newlands in the County of the City of Glasgow, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hughes and the Lord Wheatley.

CITIZENSHIP: PROPOSED REVIEW
2.56 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to ascertain the views of Members of both Houses of Parliament and the public in the course of their review of citizenship.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government have not yet decided upon the form that their review of citizenship will take, but we shall certainly bear in mind the need to ascertain the views of Members of both Houses and of the public.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I take it from the noble Lord's Answer that Her Majesty's Government have not ruled out the possibility of setting up a Select
1670
Committee of both Houses on this subject and, if that is not a front runner, could the noble Lord give a little more detail about the other forms which the review might take and which would involve both Houses of Parliament and members of the public?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government have not yet made a decision on the form of the review. It could be by a Select Committee; it could be by a Royal Commission. There are a number of ways in which this matter could be considered. What Her Majesty's Government are doing at the present moment is weighing up all the procedures that could be adopted and, what is much more important, the considerations which will have to be taken into account. A good deal has been done in that field.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wonder whether we can expect an announcement on this subject before the Recess, giving in detail the form of the review?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that that is most unlikely.

SCHOOLS: MEDICAL ACCOMMODATION
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972 are being carried out so as to provide effectively suitable accommodation for medical inspection and first-aid et cetera treatment.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, responsibility for making suitable accommodation available rests with the local education authorities who will be aware of the requirements of the Standard of School Premises Regulations 1972, which are a consolidation of regulations which have been in force for many years; the detailed provision may vary according to resources available and pressure on school space. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in his approval of estimates and plans for all new and re-modelled schools, ensures that

1671
provision is made for such accommodation.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I say that no one on this side of the House, or in fact in the whole House, would expect a fairy wand to be waved to get all this done at once. But is my noble friend aware that there is absolutely no use being made of these Regulations, except in the form of plans for the future to which she referred. There are buildings in which no doctor can possibly do anything, and there are no provisions at all for first-aid. Is it not possible for something to be done in these old buildings?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is quite clear about this matter. The Regulations relate to all maintained educational premises, not just to new buildings. I am sure he recognises that many of these premises were built before the present standards were laid down and, as he himself pointed out, the cost of bringing them all up to standard is impossible to meet at the moment. Furthermore, of course, the economic cuts last year naturally slowed down the process. However, I am pleased to be able to inform my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has just announced that, in making allocations for basic need resources in 1974–75, he has managed to set aside a small reserve to enable a limited number of primary school improvements or replacement projects to proceed. Naturally, these will incorporate the points raised by my noble friend.
As regards first-aid boxes, which formed the third part of his supplementary, provision of these is, and has been for some time, the Department's clear advice to authorities and schools. It is certainly what is recommended in the Department's safety publications. But if my noble friend has any information of specific cases where these have not been provided, I should be grateful if he would let me know.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. I shall be happy to tell her anything I know, but I should not want to give her too long a list of the large number of places where there is no provision of any kind. Doctors can look at patients among the children
1672
only by expelling people from the room and in many cases, even if a first-aid box is provided, there is no one trained in first-aid. May I ask my noble friend whether she will be prepared to reply to an Un-starred Question when we come back after the General Election?
BARONESS BIRK: Yes, my Lords. If I am sitting here, my noble friend will certainly be sitting on the Benches behind the Front Bench.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while recognising the poor quality of some of our modern architects, may I ask whether it is possible that some of them may have overlooked this important accommodation?
BARONESS BIRK: No, my Lords, it is not possible because this requirement is specifically laid down, and whether the architecture is beautiful or not the provision has to be incorporated.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, will my noble friend keep up the pressure on the Treasury and the powers that be, to maintain for our children the educational and other services? Further, is she aware that the standards of health and the height and weight of our children today are better than ever in British history, because of the National Health Service and the school meals; and that any money spent on medical aid and premises, and meals and health is investment in life, which is of paramount importance?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I am always ready and willing to put pressure on anybody in order to advance social welfare.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, one of the ways of dealing with the problem which has been put forward by all noble Lords is through minor works. Can the noble Baroness confirm that when the cuts to which she referred in her Answer were made last December, minor works were not cut? Secondly, can the noble Baroness tell the House how much of her right honourable friend's recent allocation will now be allocated to minor works?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the minor works: I was referring to the cuts which, of course, affected the building of new

1673
schools. I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord how much has been allocated, because my right honourable friend has not yet announced it. When he does so, I shall make sure that the House knows.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the substance of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Crook regarding these old schools is nothing new? Is she aware that over the last 20 years it has been a matter of consideration by successive Governments, although nothing has been done. Why do we not bulldoze them and have new schools built, which give the accommodation asked for in the Question and in the supplementaries from other Members of this House?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I am aware of what my noble friend said. This matter has been going on over the years. I think he will agree that it is quite impossible to bulldoze these old schools at the moment, because there would be many children without any schools to go to.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, bearing in mind some of the accidents in these schools—not merely to one child but to several—is the noble Baroness satisfied that there is adequate storage accommodation for drugs and other surgical appliances, which are often needed for the treatment of injuries which may be of a serious kind?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge—and I have made as many inquiries as I could about this matter—I am satisfied that there is provision. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, it is quite impossible to have special accommodation set aside because of demands of space, particularly in older schools, but to the best of my knowledge, this provision is made. I must repeat that this is the responsibility of the local education authorities and if the noble Lord will let me know of examples I will see that the Department takes them up.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: EXPLORATION RIGHTS
3.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since my Questions have gone down on the Order Paper in reverse order to that intended, due to a clerical error, I beg leave to ask my second Question first. I would also point out that it contains a misprint and should refer to the Southern North Sea.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any Statement to make on Paris Press reports that the French Government seeks a share of the exploration rights in the British licensing area of the Continental Shelf in the Southern Sea.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH): My Lords, I have not seen the Paris Press reports referred to by the noble Earl. As he will know, six French-owned companies already hold 13 petroleum exploration and production licences on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, which includes the Southern North Sea. There are no immediate plans to issue further licences.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which is reassuring so far as it goes, may I ask him whether he will take this opportunity to reaffirm the stand of this Government, and of the previous Government, as to British sovereignty over mineral rights on the British section of the Continental Shelf?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the sovereign rights over the petroleum reserves under the water have never been challenged. I readily reaffirm the position which the previous Government took, and which this Government have also taken.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, that will be very satisfactory and will be received with great relief in many quarters.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, so far as the North Sea oil shelf is concerned, can the Minister assure us that there will be no giving away of British interests to the Common Market?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has expressly mentioned that all our rights will be maintained fully, and all obligations also met.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: LICENSING AREAS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any Statement to make on Press reports that delimitation of the Franco-British Continental Shelf licensing areas has been referred to arbitration.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister informed another place yesterday, at his meeting with the President of France on July 19 it was agreed that the problem over the delimitation of the continental shelf should be settled by impartial arbitration.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he can give the House any information as to who are the arbitrators and when one may expect proceedings to begin and more important, to terminate?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the composition of the arbitrating tribunal, which has been agreed between the French and ourselves, remains to be settled, but I anticipate no difficulty about agreement on that score. The tribunal will start work as soon as possible. I expect this to be done in the course of the next few weeks or within two or three months.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does the noble Lord expect proceedings to be prolonged, or is it mutually hoped that proceedings themselves need not last more than a few weeks?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would hopefully anticipate that
1676
they will not be prolonged as they are the discussions between friends and allies.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the arbitrators will be free, and that there will not be Common Market jurists as arbitrators to determine the issue in the light of the fact that they have an interest in the whole matter?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the membership of the Tribunal will be agreed between the two countries and will be drawn from among prominent international jurists.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many members there will be of the Tribunal? Is that not a very civilised way to settle differences between countries?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is indeed a very civilised way of settling differences between countries. On the first point, I can say that the membership will be five.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the seat of the Tribunal is likely to be located at The Hague?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, no, I could not. That too will be agreed between the two parties.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not the views of the Channel Islands are to be taken into consideration in this matter?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the area to be submitted to arbitration is to be agreed between the two countries and, of course, the position of the Channel Islands will form part of that discussion.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord add this further information to what he has already been good enough to tell the House: is it the case that one of the points at issue between the two countries is the definition of the word "adjacent" in the relevant convention and whether that means geographically or geologically adjacent?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is indeed so, and if it were the only point that will need to be discussed one would feel somewhat relieved.

1677
That point and a number of other very technical points will have to be gone into in fair depth—if that is the right phrase to use in this case.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, for fear that what the noble Lord has just done may be taken as a precedent, may I refer him to Standing Order No. 37 of which he was in breach. However, as the note has just been passed to me, it is now done and we cannot help it. I hope it will not happen again.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the genial manner for his correction and remind him that I was acting in the light of a precedent sanctioned a year ago when a similar situation arose. But I am much obliged for the leave and indulgence of the House.

BUSINESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DA VIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinners will be available to-night.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At this time of the Session I usually have to ask your Lordships to dispense with this Standing Order to enable certain Private Bills to pass through both Houses of Parliament before the Summer Recess. Standing Order 147 provides that not less than three clear days before the Third Reading of a Private Bill a copy of the Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be deposited with the Public Departments concerned. The purpose of suspending the Standing Order is to shorten the period between the Committee stage and the Third Reading of the Bill by not requiring the Departments concerned to receive the amended Bill three clear days in advance. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 147 (Bill as amended in Committee to be deposited at Public Departments) be considered in order to its being dispensed with until the House rises for the Summer Recess.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 61 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Clause 8, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
"(7) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, but nothing in that Act restricting the power of a court to make an order for possession of a dwelling-house shall prevent the granting of a decree of removing under section 9(1) of this Act."
[No. 2]
Clause 10, page 13, line 23, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These Amendments are simple. They deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, on Second Reading in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude for these Amendments being put into the Bill. Unfortunately this clarification of the law may mean rather less business for the Bar in Scotland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
3.16 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 17 [Certain loans and grants limited to registered housing associations]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 15, line 45, after ("relevant works") insert ("approved for subsidy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a drafting Amendment and refers to the new subsection (4)(c) inserted at Committee stage to enable local authorities to make loans where necessary to unregistered housing associations in connection with the relevant works for the purposes of special residual subsidy. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I of course accept this Amendment. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, simply a drafting Amendment. But I rise to speak because although I have been grateful for the courtesy both of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in saying that there were a great many Government Amendments to this Bill to come on Report it has come as rather a surprise to find out how many have arrived. Again, although I am grateful to have had a letter about it, a great number of the Amendments have come without any notes at all and some of the notes have been very short indeed. I received the full list only yesterday and it is very difficult to master nearly 80 pages of Amendments at less than 24 hours' notice. Although I accept that it is difficult for the Government speakers to be able to control these events, it is a question of organisation, and on a major Bill like this it is difficult enough for those of us who are at least reasonably conversant with the Bill but very difficult indeed for other noble Lords who may wish to speak. I think I should register my feeling at this stage.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said, because I have often in the past suffered exactly from the same problem when occupying the Benches on the other side of the House. It seems to be a perpetual fault of Parliament.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think we should let that go quite as simply as that. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rightly said, when we were in Government the same problems occurred of Amendments being put down at a late stage. But I myself in three and a half years in Government have not seen a case as bad as this. I am not criticising the noble Lord. It is not his Department—I think it is the Department of the Environment which is concerned. But I understand that there were 85 Amendments put down yesterday—85! My noble friend Lady Young has said that she was notified in advance and I think she is quite ready to debate them and I am sure she will be able to do justice to the Amendments. But there is a principle here and I hope that the noble Lord will not brush this off—I do not think he will—but will go back to the Department concerned and say, "This is not good enough."
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I will undertake to do so. But I am just making the point that this does happen. Perhaps some years it is worse than others, and perhaps this is a bad year. But when we go through the Amendments it will become quite clear that none of them is as formidable as they look and many are very simple indeed. Indeed, the most difficult Amendments are those which have been submitted from the Benches opposite, simply because of the difficulties attending Members of an Opposition in drafting Amendments on complicated subjects. So I think we will find that the situation is not nearly so bad as it appears at the moment. I hope that events will prove me right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Housing association grants]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 24, line 18, at end insert ("and for this purpose the grant of a licence to occupy shall be treated as a letting.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention of this Amendment is to ensure that a registered housing association which is precluded by its rules or consistent instrument from granting tenancies for some or all of its dwellings

1681
may become eligible for housing association grant where the dwellings are occupied by licensees. As the Bill now stands the reference to dwellings "which are or are to be let or available for letting" would exclude from housing association grant those housing associations which are almshouse trusts and whose almspeople are not tenants and do not pay rent. Such almspeople are licensees. They may be, but are not always, required to pay a "coniribution" towards the upkeep of the dwellings and sometimes towards the cost of ancillary services.
The Government intend that housing projects proposed by almshouse trusts (and other similar bodies) who are also registered housing associations, should be eligible for housing association grant on broadly the same basis as projects undertaken by other registered housing associations. I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, before starting my remarks on the Amendments, I regret to say that I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, regarding the rapid progress of this stage and his feeling that he will be able to surmount the 85 Amendments which have been put down plus a further five Amendments on a supplementary list. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his courtesy and assistance over certain Amendments of which he is well aware. I should also like to point out that his letter reached me at half-past twelve today and as it runs into three folios and is of a particularly complicated nature, I scarcely had time to read it, let alone appreciate the full minutiae of what it contains. This is a further complication, but as the afternoon wears on I have no doubt that I shall have opportunity to go into it in greater detail. We are much indebted to the staff of this House and the Departments concerned in producing these Amendments in a manageable form in particularly difficult circumstances from the printing point of view. This is a massive task. We should congratulate the staff in producing a Marshalled List at all of this magnitude.
In regard to the Amendment itself, in so far as housing associations are concerned related to almshouses, I have a special interest which I should declare in that I am a chairman of a building
1682
association currently concerned with the possibility of doing precisely what is suggested within this clause. I can only say that this is a very helpful Amendment and one with which I personally agree. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was kind enough to furnish my noble friend Lady Young with notes and I greatly appreciate his courtesy in providing the amplification.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. On behalf of my noble friend I wish to associate ourselves with what the noble Lord said in praise of the work of the staff. We are all very much in their debt in these difficult circumstances. I am not certain that I spoke of proceeding with speed in relation to these Amendments, although I may have done so. If I did, it was an error. What I intended to convey was that the Amendments would not be as formidable as they appeared; but obviously we must take proper time to consider them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Declaration of housing action areas.]
3.25 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("is") and insert ("and the obligations imposed by section (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.) below are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. I should also like to suggest, if the House would give me leave, that we should consider Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 16, 20, 23 and 69 at the same time. This is a fairly formidable list but it is the heaviest list and what has to be said regarding these Amendments will be more lengthy than will be necessary regarding any other set of Amendments. It will be helpful if I go into some detail because the issue raised is one of some importance and also because of the very difficulties to which reference has been made.
Together, these Amendments would provide for local authorities to be notified, in housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods, of notices to quit, and of certain property transactions. This is the notification system, which I outlined on

1683
Second Reading, by which we are seeking to realise the sort of objectives the previous Government had in mind when they suggested the so-called "first refusal option scheme". The proposals now before us are less complex and more limited than such a scheme would have had to be, in that the notification system is concerned only with notification: it does not—and I want to stress this—give authorities new rights over land. We also think it more practical, in view of the resources available, in that it is concerned only with seeing that authorities have the opportunity of considering whether they need or are in a position to take action, under their existing powers, in respect of tenanted property where a notice to quit has been served or where the property is in danger of leaving the privately rented sector. It is an essential addition to the powers already in the Bill which are, overall, directed at securing that the action taken in housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods is in the interests of those living in the areas concerned.
I will deal first with the new clause, which is the basic provision. Subsec-tions (1) and (2) provide respectively for the notification of notices to quit and of the expiry of fixed term tenancies. Subsection (3) provides for the categories of property transactions which are to be notified: I will come in a moment, when dealing with subsection (6), to the very important exceptions. Subsection (4) provides a four week pause after declaration of a housing action area before the notification system comes into effect: this is to give time for local authorities to publicise the requirements as to notification, and for those likely to be affected by the system to be aware of their obligations.
Subsection (5) requires authorities to say within four weeks of notification what; action, if any, they propose to take as a result of notification. Subsection (6), to which I referred just now, lists exemptions from the requirement to notify property transactions. These are substantial and important exceptions but it is right that the system should apply only to those tenanted or formerly tenanted properties which are likely to leave the rented sector. Paragraph (a) exempts owner-occupiers, as they are defined.
1684
Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) exempt local authority transactions, furnished or protected tenancies and short fixed-term leases. Accordingly, there is no requirement to notify if a property is owner-occupied or if a tenanted property is to continue to be let. Subsections (7) to (10) prescribe for enforcement the offences created which, being of a summary nature, would have a maximum penalty of £400, which is currently the normal penalty for failing to give required information. Section (10) itself provides that failure to notify will not invalidate a notice to quit or conveyance.
My Lords, the new Schedule prescribes the form and content of notifications The three Amendments to Clause 36—that is to say, Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5—are important, in that they impose the necessary duty on a local authority who have declared a housing action area or a priority neighbourhood, to take steps to bring to the attention of owners and occupiers of property concerned their obligations under the system and to publicise the name and address of the person to whom inquiries about the system can be made. The Department's circular will stress the importance of the provisions for publicity and for seeing that people's questions are answered
The Amendment to Clause 53—Amendment No. 23—provides for the system to apply in priority neighbourhoods as well as in housing action areas. Its availability there will help the housing action area concept, not dilute it. Where resources of staff and other resources are short, it is in housing action areas that an authority will have to concentrate its attention. I shall return to this point when making a few remarks at the Third Reading of the Bill. The Amendment to Clause 48, Amendment No. 20, is purely technical.
My Lords, these are important provisions which we see, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said, as a sensible compromise solution to a particularly thorny problem with which the previous Government, like this one, have sought to grapple. I have referred to the objectives and to the safeguards in order to bring out the balance which we have sought to secure and hold. I commend these provisions to the House and I hope that, seen and taken together, they will

1685
make good sense to your Lordships. I beg to move.
3.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation of this very important series of Amendments—in particular the new clause. Once again the difficulty of the timetable has meant that we on this side of the House were not aware of the particular grouping of the Amendments which the Government wished to put forward. Therefore one has not prepared one's remarks as if one were speaking to quite such a large group of Amendments, although I of course appreciate that they all stand together in the Bill.
The particular point of these Amendments is to introduce this new concept of a notification procedure into housing action areas and also into priority neighbourhoods. This takes the place of what was originally written into the Bill, which was to have what was called the first refusal option scheme. We on this side of the House entirely support the principle of the housing action area and are concerned that it should work effectively. I indicated at Committee stage that it seemed to me that one of the most important things to do was to have effective consultation about these areas and, of course, about the priority neighbourhoods. This seems to me to become even more important when one sees in the new clause the penalties that will fall on an owner who fails to comply with the procedure laid down in the Bill. In effect, an owner will have a relatively short time—four weeks in some cases—to notify the local authority of his intention to sell a house, and if he fails to do this he could, as I have said, incur these penalties. I think it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could indicate to the House how he sees the timetable on all this working out, because, as I understand the procedure, it is not the intention that the local authority shall consult anybody about the area of the housing action area. It will draw up this area as it will draw up the area of the priority neighbourhood. What has been decided is that, having decided on the area, nothing will happen within it until there is consultation with the residents.
1686
It is very important to know how all this will work out in practice and what advice the Department of the Environment will give to local authorities about how to proceed. This is even more important where an authority may well have as, for instance, in London or some of the other major conurbations, several housing action areas within its boundaries. Therefore it is very important that owners should know what is expected of them in this new procedure, that tenants should know their rights and that there should be the fullest possible consultation and explanation within a reasonable timetable so that everybody can keep to the law.
My Lords, as I said earlier, I myself do not think that housing action areas will be helped by the priority neighbourhood idea. It will tend to dilute the very scarce resources of staff who, instead of concentrating on the housing action area, will be operating on a much larger area—the priority neighbourhood, of course, being adjacent to the housing action area. I hope very much that this will not happen, but I fear that it will. However, I do not propose to oppose these Amendments because, as I have already indicated, we are very keen on this side of the House that the concept of the housing action area should be introduced as soon as practicable.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the way in which she has spoken with regard to this group of Amendments. I wish that we could have extended all the facilities that she would have liked. I think she knows that I did my very best to see to it that she was in possession of information almost as soon as I was. I am very grateful to her for the way in which she has approached this grouping of Amendments as I have put them before the House. May I say that it seemed to me that the noble Baroness had grappled very ably with the grouping. On the last point which the noble Baroness made, the priority neighbourhoods, rather than diluting, will safeguard and strengthen the position. That is the intention. Between the Committee stage and this debate this afternoon we had a discussion with the noble Baroness. I am sorry if she still has any doubts with regard to the effect on

1687
priority neighbourhoods. If she feels that she would like further assurance, we shall certainly be glad to communicate or to arrange a meeting so that we can discuss the matter further.
I was very pleased indeed that the noble Baroness raised the issue of publicity. May I say right away that I appreciate what she said when we discussed this matter at the meeting to which I have referred. The ideas which she put forward were constructive and extremely helpful and they will certainly be fully borne in mind when advice is being given to local authorities as to how publicity is to be given. We could not possibly lay down guidelines that would apply everywhere in the same way, as I think the noble Baroness will agree. We shall have to suggest to local authorities that they should go to very considerable lengths in some areas, using not only empty properties and caravans—which I think the noble Baroness herself suggested—but mobile caravans going around an area, explaining and encouraging people to show interest. I think we can use old buses and anything that will help us to bring the community into full participation. It is very important that we should help people to know their rights as fully and intimately as possible.
My Lords, the noble Baroness raised the question of the timetable. The period of four weeks mentioned in the clause is of course a minimum period. One would expect a vendor to notify as soon as he put his property on the market. A notification does not have to say who the purchaser will be; it is merely a matter of informing of the intention to put a property on the market. It is quite a simple thing to do and should present no difficulty. I would also point out that very few properties are sold without the participation of a solicitor. I think we can be fairly certain that a solicitor would make sure that the requirements were met before allowing his client to complete the sale. Again, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her I helpful approach to this matter, and for the constructive suggestions she has made in discussion. I hope that the Amendments will commend themselves to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 26, after ("whom") insert: ("should be addressed")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 28, leave out ("should be addressed") and insert ("or, as the case may be, any inquiries concerning the obligations so imposed").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.43 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 6.
Page 35, line 46, at end insert—
("(4A) As soon as may be after a resolution has been passed declaring an area to be a housing action area, the resolution shall be registered in the register of local land charges—

(a) by the proper officer, for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925, of the local authority in whose area the housing action area is situated; and

(b) in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act.'")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 22 These Amendments provide that when a housing action area or a priority neighbourhood are declared, they must be registered in the register of local land charges. Persons purchasing or contemplating purchasing property in a housing action area or a priority neighbourhood will thus know when they make their purchases that they are in such an area. The Government consider that these Amendments will enhance the provisions of the Bill which provide for information to be given to owners and occupiers of properties in housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods. I hope that the House will agree to them on that basis.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. It seems a most useful first piece of information for everyone about a housing action area.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Incorporation of general improvement areas, or parts thereof, into housing action areas]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 14:
Page 37, line 21, after ("declaration") insert ("(a)").
Page 37, line 22, after ("1969") insert ("or (b) is comprised in a priority neighbourhood declared under section 49A below").
Page 37, line 24, leave out ("1969 Act"and insert ("relevant").
Page 37, line 28, leave out from ("the") to ("to") in line 29 and insert ("relevant land shall be deemed (according to its status) either— (a)").
Page 37, line 33, at end insert ("or (b) to have been excluded from the priority neighbourhood by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 39(1) below, as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49C below or, as the case may be, to have ceased to be a priority neighbourhood by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 38(3) below (as that section so applies)").
Page 37, line 38, leave out ("1969 Act") and insert ("relevant").
Page 37, line 43, leave out ("1969 Act") and insert ("relevant").
Page 37, line 46, leave out ("1969 Act") and insert ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. These Amendments are purely technical and procedural, and follow upon acceptance in Committee of the clause relating to priority neighbourhoods. They provide machinery by which priority neighbourhoods can be converted into housing action areas without their having to be specifically undeclared first. I hope that the House will accept these Amendments on this basis. If the House will permit me, since they are consecutive, I will move these Amendments en bloc.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, once again I am glad to accept these Amendments. I appreciate that they are all technical, but it would have been helpful to know that they were to be moved together, because it is quite a business going through the Bill and sorting out what they all mean. But of course I accept them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Acquisition of land in housing action areas]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 41, line 10, at end insert—
"(3A) If, at any time after a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition of land falling within subsection (1) above has been made but before it is confirmed, the housing action area concerned ceases to be such an area by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 52 below or the land concerned is excluded from the area by virtue of that paragraph, the provisions of this section shall continue to apply as if the land continued to be in a housing action area.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to speak to Amendment No. 24 at the same time as moving this Amendment. These two Amendments are consequential on acceptance by the House of new clauses relating to priority neighbourhoods. In both housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods local authorities will have the more specific powers of land acquisition contained in Clause 43. The Amendments provide that compulsory purchase orders made under the clause will not lapse if the area in which the land concerned is situated is converted from a priority neighbourhood into a housing action area, or vice versa. Again, I hope the House will see the advantage of these necessary transitional provisions. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I quite see that these are transitional provisions, because clearly if a local authority has introduced its priority neighbourhood with the intention of converting it within a few years to a housing action area it must have some kind of statutory procedure for dealing with the compulsory acquisition of properties. I am bound to say that it all adds force to my argument that the priority neighbourhood will dilute the housing action area, because if a local authority is going in for compulsory purchase in this area (again this is not something which I feel is a welcome idea outside the housing action area) it will require, as we all know, legal staff as well as surveyors and all the housing staff in order to acquire these properties. I think this is yet another case of the dilution of staff, and I raise this point again because I feel strongly about it. Although I shall not myself oppose the transitional arrangements, it

1691
is something which the Department itself should consider carefully when it gives advice to local authorities on the use of their staff and something which local authorities themselves should consider if they want to see housing action areas being as effective as we all hope they will be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 46 insert the following new clause:
("Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation, etc.
(1)Within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which a notice to quit is served—

(a)in respect of land consisting of or in cluding housing accommodation in a housing action area, and

(b)on a tenant who occupies as a dwelling the whole or any part of that land,

the landlord by or on whose behalf the notice is served shall notify the local authority in accordance with Schedule (Notification procedure) to this Act, that the notice has been served.
(2) Not less than 4 weeks before the expiry by effluxion of time of any tenancy—

(a) which is a tenancy of land consisting of or including housing accommodation in a housing action area, and

(b)which expires without the service of any notice to quit,

the person who is the landlord under that tenancy shall notify the local authority, in accordance with Schedule (Notification procedure) to this Act, that the tenancy is about to expire.
(3) Not less than 4 weeks and not more than 6 months before the date on which a person carries out a disposal of land to which this section applies, he shall notify the local authority, in accordance with Schedule (Notification procedure) to this Act that the disposal is to take place; and for the purposes of this section a person carries out a disposal of land if he conveys or enters into a contract to convey a legal estate or interest in the land, whether or not that estate or interest is in existence immediately before the date of the conveyance or contract.
(4) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall impose an obligation on any person to notify a local authority of any matter if, apart from this subsection, the obligation would require him to notify the authority at some time before the expiry of the period of
1692
4 weeks beginning with the date on which the housing action area concerned is declared.
(5) A local authority who receive a notification given in compliance with any provision of subsections (1) to (3) above shall,—

(a) as soon as practicable after the notification is received, send to the person by whom it was furnished a written acknowledgement of its receipt, stating the day on which it was received; and

(b) within the period of 4 weeks beginning with the day on which the notification was received, inform the person by whom it was furnished what action, if any, they propose to take as a result of the notification with respect to the land to which the notification relates.

(6) This section applies to a disposal of land consisting of or including housing accommoda tion in a housing action area, other than a disposal—

(a) by a person who, throughout the period of 6 months ending on the date of the disposal, has been continuously in exclusive occupation (with or without members of his household) of the land to which the disposal relates; or

(b) to which the local authority arc a party; or

(c) consisting of the grant of a protected tenancy, within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968, or of a contract to which Part VI of that Act applies; or

(d) consisting of the grant or assignment of a lease (of land or of an interest in land) for a term which expires within the period of 5 years and 3 months beginning on the date of the grant of the lease, where neither the lease nor any other instrument or contract confers on the lessor or the lessee an option (however expressed) to renew or extend the term so that the new term or the extended term would continue beyond the end of that period of 5 years and 3 months; or

(e) consisting of the grant of an estate or interest by way of security for a loan; or

(f) consisting of the conveyance of an estate or interest where the conveyance gives effect to a contract to convey that estate or interest and the proposal to enter into that contract was notified to the local auhority in accordance with subsection (3) above.

(7) Any person who—

(a)without reasonable excuse fails to comply with an obligation imposed on him by subsection (1) or subsection (2) above, or

(b) without reasonable excuse carries out a disposal of land to which this section applies without having complied with the obligation imposed on him by subsection (3) above or

(c) knowingly or recklessly furnishes a notification which is false in a material particular in purported compliance with any provision of this section, or

(d) knowingly or recklessly omits from any such notification any information which

1693
is required to be contained therein by virtue of any provision of Schedule (notification procedure) to this Act,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
(8) Where an offence under subsection (7) above which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(9) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (8) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(10) The conviction of any person for an offence under or subsection (7) above shall not affect the date on which any tenancy expires (whether by virtue of a notice to quit or otherwise) or the validity of any disposal of land."—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Local authorities for purposes of Part IV]:
3.45 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 44, line 32, after ("under") insert ("subsections (1) to (3) of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27 and 70. It is not as substantial as it may sound and all these Amendments hang together. Your Lordships will recall that the Amendments pressed at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were concerned with deleting the default powers—or the reserve powers, as they are sometimes known—of the Greater London Council to declare housing action areas and general improvement areas without the consent of the London borough concerned.
My noble friend Lord Hughes made it clear at the time that the need to proceed with the Bill—and having regard to the number of noble Lords in the Chamber—precluded the Government from seeking to divide the Committee. We also made it clear that we on the
1694
Government side were unhappy at the removal of these powers. They were always seen as no more than back-up powers designed to enable the Greater London Council to act where, in the view not only of the Greater London Council but also of the Secretary of State, the very scale of the problem and the pressing needs of the people and their families living in the deprived areas would merit declaration, even without borough council consent to it.
With reluctance, I have to say that the Government have formed the view that given the firm attitude maintained by the Opposition in this House and the very short time left in which to secure the passage of this vital Bill, we do not seek to contest the decision made by your Lordships at Committee stage. I hope we can now put behind us the differences that there have been between us, and it is in this spirit that I shall be moving these Amendments, which are wholly consequential on the decision of the Committee to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. They are concerned merely with tidying up the Bill, so that as it leaves us it will be technically compatible with the Greater London Council having power to declare housing action areas, general improvement areas or priority neighbourhoods, only (and I want to stress this) with the consent of the local authority concerned.
We also trust that the boroughs, the City and the Greater London Council will put their differences behind them, that the London Boroughs Association will observe the spirit of the offers which they made to promote action in London as a whole and inform the Greater London Council of their proposals, and that the authorities of Greater London will join in planning, agreeing and carrying out together a programme of action. I indicated that it was a fairly lengthy list of Amendments, but I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that these Amendments have been tabled in order to deal with the situation consequent upon the Amendment successfully moved by the noble Baroness in Committee. I hope I have indicated that we for our part have accepted the position and have endeavoured, by the Amendments to which I have spoken, to tidy up the Bill as a consequence. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it would indeed be churlish of me to criticise this group of Amendments, and I should like to say how grateful I am to the Government for their acceptance of the Amendment that we moved in Committee, concerning the relationship between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs in housing action areas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said on that occasion that as always the Amendments were not properly drafted and I am therefore all the more grateful that the Government should have put the Bill in order, to meet this Amendment and, of course, Schedule 4 to the Bill which goes with it. As I understand the position, Amendment No. 25, which I think deals with priority neighbourhoods, included that as well. We are very glad to accept them and are grateful for what the Government have done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 38, leave out ("Schedule 4 to this Act") and insert ("this subsection").
Page 44, line 41, after ("(a)") insert ("section 36(4) and"). —(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 20, when we were considering Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 41, leave out ("and 46") and insert ("to (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.)").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we dealt with Amendment No. 21 in connection with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 9, leave out ("Schedule 4 to this Act") and insert ("that subsection").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Declaration of priority neighbourhoods]:
4.0 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment, No. 22, on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46B, line 28, at end insert—
("(5A) As soon as may be after a resolution has been passed declaring an area to be a priority neighbourhood, the resolution shall be registered in the register of local land charges—

(a) by the proper officer, for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925, of the local authority in whose area the priority neighbourhood is situated; and

(b) in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act.").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Application to priority neighbourhoods of certain provisions of Part IV]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I covered Amendment No. 23 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46D, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(ee) section (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.); and").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 was taken with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46D, line 55, at end insert:
("(4A) In the application, by virtue of subsection (1) above, of section 43 above, in subsection (3A) of that section for the words" paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 52 below "there shall be substituted the words" paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section 38 above ".").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Local Authorities for the purposes of Part VI]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 together. We

1697
spoke to them on Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 46E, leave out lines 6 to 16 and insert:
(" (2) The Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under subsections (1) to (4) of section 51 above with respect to any area in Greater London, but only with the agreement of any local authority in whose district the area or any part of the area is situated.")
Page 46E, line 18, leave out from ("with") to ("subsection") in line 19.
Page 46E, line 23, leave out ("51 to") and insert ("51(5,), 52 and").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 55 [Grants for provision, improvement and repairs of dwellings]:
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): My Lords, there is a Supplementary List which takes precedence here, and we should now take Amendment No. 27A.
4.6 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert ("or means of escape in case of fire").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we might discuss together the four Amendments on the Supplementary List, that is to say 27A, 29A, 33A and 33B which all deal with the same subject matter and the same points, the subject being financial help for fitting fire escape apparatus in houses in multiple occupation.
I certainly need to explain to the House the reason for bringing forward this important subject so late in the life of this Bill. I do not think I need apologise because this arises out of something rather wonderful that happened on Report stage of the Finance Bill in another place only on Tuesday of last week. At an earlier stage of that Bill, in Standing Committee, my honourable friend the Member for North Cornwall initiated a debate upon the unsatisfactory slowness of implementing the provisions of the Fire Precautions Act, 1971. In the course of that debate it was pointed out by several Members that there was this anomaly, that a hotel or boarding house keeper who went to expense in order to comply with an order served on him under the Public Health Act was able to show that expense against
1698
his profits before arriving at his profits for tax, thus getting tax relief; whereas if the order required him not to do works under the Public Health Act but under the Fire Precautions Act that work did not rank as an expense deductible from profits before arriving at tax. Tax relief in that case was lost. That is an anomaly.
The Government were sympathetic to these arguments. As I say, only on Tuesday of last week at the Report stage the Financial Secretary introduced a new Clause 10 into the Finance Bill setting right this anomaly and allowing hotel keepers and boarding house keepers, if they effected necessary fire escape work and went to expense, thereafter to show that expense as a deduction before arriving at their profits for tax purposes.
That provision does not, unfortunately, apply to the houses of which I am speaking this afternoon—houses in multiple occupation. I should explain to your Lordships that as far as I can see the distinction between a boarding house and what the Department of the Environment calls a house in multiple occupation is that, whereas the boarding house keeper lets furnished rooms to boarders, the house in multiple occupation is a house in which unfurnished rooms are let.
The reason why this new provision in the Finance Bill does not help the house in multiple occupation is that the Inland Revenue, although they recognise hotels and boarding house keepers as being engaged in trade, for Inland Revenue purposes the person owning a house in multiple occupation is not regarded by the Inland Revenue as being engaged in trade. Since the new clause in the Finance Bill begins "if a person engaged in trade" et cetera, that excludes the house in multiple occupation from that tax advantage if fire escape apparatus is installed.
My Lords, take a house which is a single dwelling. If fire escape apparatus is installed there, that expense will qualify for an improvement grant. If a house is converted into a block of flats and that work includes fire escape provision and expense, that expense will rank for an improvement grant. But, for some reason—or it is mere chance, I suppose—the house in multiple occupation is out on a limb, on its own. The owner can see that all round him other people are getting financial help towards putting in

1699
fire escapes while he is denied such help. The hotel keepers get it and the boarding house keepers get it by tax relief, and ordinary householders and people who can convert their property into blocks of flats get it as improvement grants. Yet the house in multiple occupation is a greater fire hazard than the others. After all, if you have a block of flats, each self-contained with its own front door, and fire breaks out in one of those flats, there is some chance of the fire being contained within that flat. That does not apply, of course, "in the case of a house in multiple occupation with mere rooms being let and people not having their own front door.
I am only asking in these Amendments that there shall be a discretionary power on local authorities who make the improvement grant in cases where they see fit. I am not asking for mandatory, blanket, enormous financial aid for every house in multiple occupation. I am not asking for that in every case. I do not think that what I am seeking can be done in any Finance Bill. A Finance Bill has to be geared to the conception of a trade and, as I have explained, this does not apply to the houses of which I am speaking. What I am asking for can only be done in a Housing Bill.
I ask myself, if we do not grasp this nettle now, if we do not deal with this in this Bill even at this late stage, when are we going to be able to deal with it? How long is it going to be in some future Parliament before another Housing Bill after this one reaches the top of the pile and gets its Parliamentary time? If we have resolved that it is right that the owners of houses in multiple occupation with their high fire hazard should be entitled to the financial help that these other people get for their fire precautions, let us deal with it now, because if it is to be a long time before we have another Housing Bill to give us the opportunity, and if during the interim there are a series of fires in these houses with loss of life, we in Parliament shall be examining our consciences.
I am sorry to bring this rather weighty and very important matter up at this late stage. As I have said, I do not think it is my fault. I am not responsible for the timetable, or the way things have been working out. I am particularly sorry to be urging this on the Minister on an
1700
afternoon when he has, I think, over 80 of his own Amendments to pilot through the House. But this is a very important matter, and I urge Her Majesty's Government to accept these Amendments. I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to associate ourselves with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and also to thank his honourable friend for the skill and ingenuity with which he spotted what appears to be a loophole in a matter of great public safety. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has explained in such detail what he has in mind that I feel it would be superfluous to add further points from our point of view. I would only say that I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply would consider the possibility of adding, in a circular to fire officers and chief fire officers, the possibility of obtaining this grant should the Government feel that this Amendment commends itself to their general policy on the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, moved this Amendment in so cool and courteous a manner that it is a matter of very great regret that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. When he was supported in equally kindly fashion by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, it is an added source of regret to me that I should have to point out that there is in fact no loophole in the law. What was done on the Finance Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred, is not the question of closing a loophole in the law. As the noble Lord has made so clear, the purpose of these Amendments is to add the provision of fire escapes to the list of standard amenities which may at the discretion of the local authority—and the noble Lord concluded by stressing the fact that it was a discretionary power—be provided with special grant for houses in multiple occupation. The proposal sounds reasonable since it is concerned with the safety of the occupante of houses in multiple occupation, but it is not considered that it would be right to make grants available for this purpose.
The need for adequate means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation has been clear to successive Governments

1701
for years. Provision was made in Section 60 of the Housing Act 1969 to enable local authorities to take action where it appears to them that a house in multiple occupation does not have the necessary means of escape from fire, or where it would not be practical to put this right at a reasonable expense. It was implicit in the packet of provisions in the 1969 Act, however, that no grant of any kind would be available to provide fire escapes in houses in multiple occupation. A clear distinction was drawn between dwellings for which improvement discretionary grants were available, and houses in multiple occupation. This distinction is continued in this Housing Bill.
In the case of improvement grants, advice has been given by Circular, that where a house was being converted into self-contained flats with the aid of grant, the cost of any necessary means of escape from fire should, wherever practicable, be included in the total cost of the works. That was in Circular 79 of 1970. Grant could be paid at the discretion of local authorities towards the provision of fire escapes in existing dwellings regardless of whether other improvement work was being carried out. That was contained in Circular 46 of 1971. Whereas, however, improvement grants for the improvement of a dwelling which in this Bill is defined as,
"a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling together with any yard, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoined with that building or part",
"house in multiple occupation" is in that clause defined as one
"which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household, exclusive of any part thereof which is occupied as a separate dwelling by persons who do form a single household."
In the latter case, special grants are intentionally confined to the provision of standard amenities, if necessary more than one of each. The intention is to encourage the provision, where required, of adequate basic amenities in relation to the number of tenants in the house, to make life that much more tolerable. Grants for more widespread improvement should be available only through the medium of improvement grants if the house was either converted into flats, or if it reverted to occupation by a single household. Although this sometimes
1702
provokes unfavourable comment, not least because many older houses in multiple occupation, especially those of three or more storeys, could be fire risks, local authorities may use the powers to which I have referred to insist on the provision of special facilities or, if necessary, closure of part of the house for human habitation.
There is also the point that to extend special grants in the way proposed would make it difficult to resist demands for grant for other work to be carried out on houses in multiple occupation, perhaps to deal with other kinds of hazards. Grants would thus come to perpetuate multiple occupation when the ultimate aim must be to provide something better than houses in multiple occupation.
My Lords, the comparison between houses in multiple occupation and hotels and boardinghouses is not a good one, for this reason. Hotels and boardinghouses generally are desirable features of the social scene. Houses which are multiple occupied are not. It is one thing to encourage the provision of fire escapes in the one case, but it is no part of Governernment policy to prolong the existence of houses in multiple occupation. The aim should be to do away with these forms of dwelling as quickly as possible. Fire hazards can be dealt with by the local authority's compulsory powers. No grant aid is needed to enable that to be done. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Sandys, will accept it when I said at the beginning of my remarks that it was not a loophole that was being closed, but that this was an entirely different thing. Provision of these facilities was regarded as part of the expense which could be charged in the running of a business. In the case of multiple occupation, which in itself is an undesirable feature, the local authorities have the necessary powers at present to deal with it. It is not necessary to give financial incentives to make in one degree something a little better which ought to be brought to an end at the earliest opportunity.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House, roughly speaking, the number of houses in multiple occupation?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, having regard to the complaints made at the

1703
beginning, it is perhaps wrong to say, "not without notice", but that is the answer.
4.20 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rather surprising on this subject. If I have understood his argument correctly he is saying that it is acceptable to give tax relief for hotels and boarding houses because they are desirable and part of the community, that it is right to give something where available to houses which are divided into self-contained flats because, again, this is a desirable consequence, but it is not right to give anything in the case of multiple-occupied houses because these arc in themselves undesirable.
Leaving aside whether or not that is so, the fact is that we have only recently been debating the Rent Bill, and the whole purpose of the Rent Bill, as I understand it, is to shift the emphasis from the division of tenancies between furnished and unfurnished to tenancies where the landlord is resident and where the landlord is not resident. By definition, when you have many tenants in a house where the landlord is resident the chances are you will have multi-occupation, and indeed there was considerable discussion on one or two Amendments of this theme of multi-occupation. I am certain that one of the consequences of the Rent Bill will be an increase in multi-occupation, because this will be the one type of accommodation outside the Rent Acts, generally speaking.
If I am right in this, it makes the point of the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lord Sandys all the more pressing. Probably there will be more houses in multi-occupation. Whether or not this is desirable seems to me to be irrelevant. Due to the short notice that we had—for perfectly explicable reasons—over the Amendments of Lord Airedale. I have not had the opportunity to look up any figures at all. either on the point Lord Robbins has raised or, indeed, on any reports from fire officers of the number of fires in multi-occupied buildings. But my impression from the reports which one sees in the Press is that these are much more common, because, of course, with many people the chances of a fire breaking out are all the greater. Of
1704
course, as we all know, the drier houses become the more likely there is to be a fire, and the more electrical equipment there is the more likely there is to be a fire. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this point, because quite seriously I think there will be more houses in this state. It may be wrong to use the expression "a loophole in the law", but they do seem to be the only group of people who are not getting any help on a matter of safety.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to both speakers from the Opposition Front Bench for their support of my Amendment, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for pinpointing these matters. I am glad I stressed at the end of my speech that what I was asking for was not mandatory grants but grants at the discretion, of the local authority. The Minister began his speech by also stressing the discretionary element and I must say I was surprised when he went on to tell us how unsatisfactory, how undesirable are houses in multiple occupation. I would not conceal for a moment that there are many houses in multiple occupation which are a disgrace and on which no local authority in its senses would encourage having money spent to put in fire escapes or anything else. However, on the other side of the coin there are unquestionably large numbers—there must be—of well-conducted, well-constructed, well-maintained houses in multi-occupation which are perfectly satisfactory in our housing situation to-day, which are serving a useful purpose and which would handsomely repay the expense—where it would be well worth while—of having fire escape apparatus included.
I have the good fortune to be in possession of the same piece of paper the Minister was quoting from in his reply to my argument. He began by quoting Section 60 of the 1969 Housing Act. and I can tell your Lordships in paraphrase what that says. Indeed, the Minister himself told your Lordships at the end of his speech, when he quoted the words,
" … or if necessary closure of part of the house for human habitation".
What that Section 60 says, in paraphrase, is that if a house is a bad fire risk if the whole of it is occupied. but it would not be such a bad fire risk if only part of it is occupied, the local authority

1705
can go to the owner and get an assurance from him that he will not allow people to occupy the undesirable part; and if they do he commits a criminal offence. If the local authority does not trust the owner, the local authority can make a closure order and close that part of the house.
My Lords, what a defeatist housing policy to say, "You shall not put in fire escapes and get financial help towards that so that the whole house can be occupied, but if it is dangerous you can close part of it". I do not regard that as a very enlightened housing policy. I am sorry to have taken up so much time. I did not suppose that at this late stage I was going to win this battle, but I am quite certain that my conscience would not have been clear if I had not raised this important matter at this opportunity. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Grants for provision, improvement and repair of dwellings]:
4.27 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 47, line 21, after ("dwelling") insert ("or, in the case of a registered disabled person, works required for his welfare, accommodation or employment where the existing dwelling is inadequate or unsuitable for these purposes")
Page 47 line 25, after ("lacks") insert ("or which in the case of a registered disabled person are inaccessible to that person by virtue of his disability").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 33 together, and possibly move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 at this stage. If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would agree to that course, I will proceed on those lines. I think I ought also to apologise to the House for breaking new ground at this late stage of the Bill, because the subject matter contained in these Amendments has not been raised before; it is because of difficulties with communications and the printing problem that I have been left to this late stage.
The first of these Amendments, Nos. 28 and 29, are designed to provide and partially finance amenities such as ramps, wide doorways, downstairs bathrooms, or where more appropriate some form of lift,
1706
for those who need them for physical reasons. The Reverend Sydney Smith once wrote:
"A comfortable house is a great source of happiness. It ranks immediately after health and a good conscience."
Whether he had his priorities right, I will leave to your Lordships to judge. Personally speaking, I find occasionally that wrestling with one's conscience is less of a problem than grappling with a flight of stairs, but be that as it may. This question of priorities was reinforced by Lady Sharp in her recent Report on the mobility of the disabled, which was recently debated in your Lordships' House, when she gave preference to the problems of housing over the subject matter of her own Report; your Lordships will probably recall the invigorating debate we had on the fate of the three-wheeler and other forms of transport.
Your Lordships' may be wondering whether there is help available on the lines I am proposing under existing legislation. To cast your minds a little further back, I would recall Section 22(1)(e) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which did require local authorities to "provide assistance" in arranging for the carrying out of any work of adaptation in the registered person's home, or for the provision of any additional facility designed to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience. Of course, the problem is that local authorities interpret this in varying degrees, and "provide assistance" can mean a range of help. Obviously some help more than others. In fact, I have found out that the majority use a means test.
I have an example which I am afraid may be rather complicated but, if your Lordships can follow it it may illustrate the point. A certain local authority required that for every 50p of assessable income—that is, the difference between a household's actual income and what they were deemed to need on the basis of a supplementary benefits type subsistence level—the owner had to pay 10 per cent. of the cost of adaptation. Therefore, with £5 a week assessable income, which is not a very high level, a person would have to pay the total cost of the adaptation. I realise that that is a rather complicated example, but I hope your Lordships will take my word for it that that is the position.
All this is in strict contrast to the uniform non-means tested 50 per cent. improvement and intermediate grants. Yet I believe there is a close parallel in helping the ordinary house owner by providing basic amenities and helping the physically handicapped person with access to an existing facility, or an alternative to that facility. There is no point in having a bathroom, even one with gold taps and a marble floor, if you cannot get at it. I believe that you are then in the same position as a person who does not have that facility at all.
If, as I propose with these Amendments, improvement and intermediate grants are introduced for these adaptations, not only will many people achieve a great deal of independence and be able to continue living in their own homes, but the cost of help from the Social Services Department, and of institutional care, will be greatly reduced. It is my contention that there is no extra cost involved if these Amendments are put into the Bill. This matter was raised in the other place by my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker but, unfortunately, because of pressure of time, the debate was cut short and no real answer was given. My spies tell me that if your Lordships agree to putting these Amendments into the Bill they should stick.
Finally, may I say one word on the third Amendment, Amendment No. 33? Whatever happens to the other two Amendments, something must be done about this subsection. I believe that my Amendment is needed to cover the case of a person who is specially moved into a more convenient house, but who, under this subsection, will have to wait 12 months for minor improvements or adaptations. I believe that to be an unsatisfactory position. For the moment, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I count it a privilege to support the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, in Amendments which he has moved with the characteristic courage and cheerfulness that we meet among disabled people throughout the country. One of the happiest Parliamentary days of my life was the last day of the last Parliament, when I presided in the other place over the passing of
1708
the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. That Act is not yet being administered equally sympathetically by every local authority. These Amendments marry with that Act, and I hope that both sides of the House will accept them.
4.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is a particularly difficult task that I have been given to advise your Lordships that the Government cannot accept the Amendments, particularly when, as my noble friend Lord Maybray-King said, they were moved with such feeling and in such an accurate and detailed manner. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, suggested that Amendments Nos, 28, 29 and 33 should go together, and I agree that that was the correct way of doing it.
Administration of the grant system has been traditionally in the hands of local authorities, and the Government generally do not wish to interfere with each local authority's discretion to decide in what circumstances, and for what kind of improvements, a grant may be approved for a substandard house. Thus, where a local authority regards a house as meriting an improvement grant under the criteria which exist, either now or under the new legislation, it would seem not unreasonable, if the application or a member of his family was disabled, for the work to be so planned as to have regard to the special needs of that person. To this extent, therefore, the grant scheme could in future help (and can already help) in deserving cases.
That apart, however, the Government do not consider it appropriate to seek to intreduce into the improvement system specific provisions for meeting the special needs of disabled people. As the noble Lord expected me to say, these can be dealt with quite separately under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (for which the Department of Health and Social Security are responsible), which gives social service authorities specific powers to carry out adaptations to existing houses to meet the special needs of disabled people. It is for individual authorities to determine whether assistance should be given in any particular case, what form that assistance should take and, depending on the means of the person concerned, whether to help financially.

1709
The provision is particularly used by social services authorities in relation to owner-occupiers and tenants of private accommodation—and remember, my Lords, the tenant in private accommodation may well be as much, or even more, in need of something being done as the man who is an owner-occupier or who may be the tenant of a local authority house. In the case of council housing, Section 3 of the 1970 Act requires them, in considering the housing needs of their district, to have regard to the special needs of chronically sick and disabled people. New housing, and adaptations to existing dwellings for this purpose, are eligible for subsidy.
There was issued in May of this year a Circular which urged local authorities to do more in the way of housing for physically handicapped people, and to help housing associations to do so, also. There is no doubt that too little has been done even since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Government intend to follow up the Circular and see that more rapid progress is made from now on in the range of ways advocated in the Circular. One has only to see what the enlightened authorities have done, the complete progress that has been made, to know that this Act, which made history in relation to help for the disabled, can deal with the situation if local authorities so wish. If a local authority are not willing to use the wide powers of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in their discretion, I cannot see that they are likely to use their discretion simply because we reiterate these powers in a housing Bill. I must admit that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said about the means test effect, in certain cases the Amendments might be helpful where an owner-occupier could, if the Amendments were added to the Bill, get a grant either of a specific amount—I am not sure whether it would be that way—or of 50 per cent. There are other cases where if the local authority use that method what could be given could be substantially less than if the provisions of existing legislation were used.
I can tell the House sincerely that the Government genuinely believe that the real measure here is that everybody who can should use all possible influence in pressing the local authorities to use the powers they have; that will be the best
1710
way of dealing with the situation. In certain cases we think that the Amendments could have an opposite effect. For that reason I cannot advise your Lordships that it would be in the interests of disabled people to make these Amendments to the Bill.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I never cease to be astounded at the Government's priorities in the matter of grants, even more so since the reply which has come from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whom I always regard as being one of the most reasonable people in your Lordships' House. Every year the Government give grants to hundreds of thousands of students, many of whom are entirely undeserving and make little use of them. But for some hypothetical reason which I am unable to understand, in a case like this they say it would be undesirable. Where are our priorities?
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Somers, misunderstands me. If I have a reputation for being reasonable I hope he thinks that I am not prepared to abandon it lightly. The Government are not refusing to give grants. The Government say that the financial help which is available under existing legislation can give more help than the 50 per cent. which could be available if it were brought into the Housing Act. Under these Amendments it is not a choice between giving or not giving grants; it is a choice concerning the legislation under which assistance can be given. As noble Lords know, I am not speaking in relation to my own Department, either in English housing or in the Department of Health and Social Security, but I have accepted the advice, which I think has been given to me properly, that in the best interests of the disabled it is better to rely on the existing legislation than making this small amendment to the Housing Bill.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I did not speak after the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, because I anticipated a more helpful reply from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. As one may speak only once on Report, I think this is perhaps an opportunity to say that from these Benches we support the Amendment, for a number of reasons. First, it seeks a standard grant; secondly, in our submission it is a "belt-and-braces" operation. We recognise this, but it is very

1711
helpful in a situation where, as the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has pointed out, many local authorities have done exactly nothing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has rightly pointed out, some splendid local authorities have taken a great deal of trouble. In supporting this Amendment we hope to spread the amount of help available on a much wider basis. By incorporating the Amendment in the Bill we feel that this aim will be achieved.
LORD RAGLAN: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, why he thinks that local authorities, having done nothing under previous legislation, should do more under this legislation?
LORD SANDYS: It is the effect of water dropping on a stone.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I also wish to support the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seemed to have three arguments, two of which rather cancelled out one another. First he said that the Government did not like to interfere with the action of the local authorities. That we understand and accept. It has been the timeless answer given by Governments of all kinds to many suggestions. He went on to deal with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. As I understand it, to incorporate the Amendment in that Act would not automatically allow for directives, but would merely place certain powers upon local authorities. It seems that the first argument was therefore unnecessary. If one is not attempting to change an already existing structure it cannot be true that it would make any difference by adding this Amendment. I would always support the argument that it is better to have powers available under more than one Act of Parliament so that if you cannot call on one you can call on the other, and, better still, you can call on both.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, now that the noble Baroness has spoken we can regard this as a non-political matter in which it is possible for a Bishop to take part. As Bishop of Leicester I count myself the keeper of the conscience of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, but I am equally anxious to help him and all those who share disabilities with him. Therefore, I feel that I must add this brief word in support of the Amendments.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the House will permit me yet again, with the Opposition, the Cross-Benches, my own supporters and the Church now all lined up against me, although I remain of the opinion that it will not necessarily be helpful, it is correct that I should accept the feeling of the House on the matter. On reflection I will accept the Amendment.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, as an observer of this incident, it is the first time I have heard a Minister of either side take an opposite view to the one expressed in his brief. I personally congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on that departure.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Certificates of future occupation]:
4.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32:
Page 50, line 17, after ("(3)") insert ("or subsection (3A)").
Page 50, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").
Page 50, line 25, at end insert—
(" (3A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, in a case where an application for a grant is made by the personal representatives of a deceased person or by trustees, a" certificate of owner-occupation "is a certificate stating that the applicants are personal representatives or trustees and intend that, on or before the first anniversary of the certified date and throughout the period of 4 years beginning on that first anniversary, the dwelling will be the only or main residence of, and exclusively occupied by, a person who, under the will or intestacy or, as the case may require, under the terms of the trust, is beneficially entitled to an interest in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof and members of his household (if any)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 en bloc. These Amendments, which are technical, are related to the certificate of owner-occupation. No allowance is made for circumstances in which an application for a grant in respect of a dwelling could be made either by the personal representatives of a deceased person or by trustees. The purpose of the Amendments is to correct these deficiencies. Comparable Amendments will be proposed to Clause 72 of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I welcome these Amendments and associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who has so rightly said that this is a historic occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has departed from his brief. We welcome it most assuredly.
LORD HUGHES: I wish that noble Lords would not emphasise this too much, or it may be the last opportunity I shall have of doing it.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Intermediate grants]:
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 55, line 7, after ("concerned") insert ("except in the case of a registered disabled person when this subsection shall not apply, ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment briefly on the other two, but in passing may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—I know he does not wish me to—for his co-operation. I explained the purpose of this Amendment, which is necessary in any case. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Conditions as to future occupation]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37:
Page 61, line 35, leave out from ("grant") to end of line 41 and insert—

(" (a) that throughout the first year of the initial period the dwelling will, as a residence, be occupied exclusively by, or be available for the exclusive occupation of, a qualifying person and members of his household (if any); and

(b) that if, at any time during the second or any subsequent year of the initial period, the dwelling is not occupied exclusively as his only or main residence by a qualifying person and members of his household (if any), the dwelling will at that time be let or available for letting by a qualifying person as a residence, and not for a holiday, to persons other than members of that person's family.

(2A) For the purposes of this section, the following are "qualifying persons" in relation to a dwelling, namely,—

(a) the applicant for the grant and any person who derives title to the dwelling through or under the applicant, otherwise than by a conveyance for value; and

1714

(b) at any time when personal representatives or trustees as such are the qualifying person by virtue of paragraph (a) above, any person who, under the will or intestacy or, as the case may require, under the terms of the trusts concerned, is beneficially entitled to an interest in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof.").

Page 61, Line 47, after ("holiday") insert ("by a qualifying person").
Page 61, Line 49, leave out from ("of") to second ("the") in line 50 and insert ("that qualifying person or any other person who is for the time being a qualifying person in relation to").
Page 61, Line 54, at end insert—
(" (3A) In determining, in a case where sub-section (2) above applies, whether there is a breach of the condition specified in that subsection, there shall be disregarded any period of not more than 12 months during which that condition is not fulfilled if—

(a) that period begins on the death of a qualifying person who, immediately before his death, was occupying the dwelling concerned as his residence; and

(b) throughout that period an interest in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof, being either the interest which belonged to the deceased or an interest which arose or fell into possession on his death, is vested in his personal representatives acting in that capacity or in trustees as such or, by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, in the Probate Judge, within the meaning of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I would move Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37 en bloc.
These Amendments honour an undertaking given by the Government in Committee in another place. The Opposition had tabled an Amendment which would have had the effect of making it a breach of grant conditions if the owner of the improved dwelling were to sell the property within five years of the improvement. The Amendment was technically defective, however, and Mr. Rossi withdrew it on being promised that the Government would bring forward their own Amendments to achieve broadly the same ends. That, my Lords, is the purpose of these Amendments. I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, yet again I should like to extend to the Government a very warm expression of gratitude, because this group of four Amendments arose out of Standing Committee in another place, and we should like to suggest to the Government that it was extremely fortunate that they were placed so suitably. I notice that the noble Lord's

1715
right honourable friend Mr. Freeson said this in Standing Committee—and I quote:
"I do not undertake to follow specifically the Scottish position. I should like to examine the matter further and bring forward a Government Amendment which seeks to meet the point that I gather we are all concerned with here".
We most warmly welcome the fact that he has done so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Power of local authorities to impose grant conditions]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 62, line 21, leave out ("or a general improvement area") and insert ("a general improvement area or a priority neighbourhood").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. This is a consequential Amendment. Amendment No. 33 was moved during the Committee stage of this Bill and had the effect of making the grant conditions in Clause 73 mandatory on G.I.A.s and H.A.A.s The Government have often made it clear that it was intended to extend these mandatory conditions to priority neighbourhoods once the new clauses relating to priority neighbourhoods had been incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am very glad to accept this Amendment, which I think is entirely in line with what we would all wish to see.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:
"General interpretation of sections 107B to 107G for Scotland
107A.—(1) In sections 107B to 107G the reference to an English enactment includes a reference to the corresponding Scottish enactment, and the corresponding Scottish enactments, except where the context otherwise implies or provides, are as follows—

(a) the corresponding Scottish enactments to Part III of the House Act 1957 are Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(b) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 54 and 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 are respectively sections 52 and 53 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;

1716

(c) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845;

(d) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 9 of the, Housing Act 1957 are section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(e) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Part V of the Housing Act 1957 is Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966;

(f) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is Part VI of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;

(g) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 60 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Housing Act 1957 are section 49 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(h) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 is section 9 of that Act;

(i) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 is Schedule 3 to that Act;

(j) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Schedule 3 to the Housing Act 1957 is Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 by virtue of section 7(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(k) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 43(2) of the Housing Act 1957 are section 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 6 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(l) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 49 of the Housing Act 1957 are section 41 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(m) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 169 of the Housing Act 1957 is section 5(3) of, and paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947;

(n) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1957 are paragraphs 6, 15 and 16 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1947, and the corresponding Scottish enactment to paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 4 is the said paragraph 6;

(o) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 30 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947;

(p) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 22 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 are sections 117 and 118 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845;

(q) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is section 40 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963;

1717

(r) the corresponding Scottish enactments to the reference to section 68 of and Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1969 are sections 18 to 20 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(s) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 36 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is section 34 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973;

(t) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 30 of the Land Compensation Act I96I is section 38 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.

(2)(a) The expression "clearance area" includes a housing treatment area which is to be dealt with by securing the demolition of all or some of the buildings in that area under section 4(2)(a) or 4(2)(c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
(b)" mortgagee "means the creditor in a heritable security.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are a number of new clauses in successive Amendments—Clauses 107A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H—and with permission I would speak to them all together in one set of remarks. The new Clause 107F and the accompany Schedule seeks to allow an authority to change its mind and rehabilitate housing scheduled for demolition under slum clearance compulsory purchase orders. This provision was anticipated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on Second Reading in another place, and a new clause covering this same subject was tabled in Committee by the Opposition. This was withdrawn on the Minister assuring the Committee that it was the Government's intention to introduce a provision of this nature at a later stage.
Recently, my Lords, there has been a groundswell of opposition to area clearance, and pressure on authorities not to demolish areas of unfit houses but, wherever possible, to rehabilitate them. While this is not always practicable or desirable, nevertheless there are instances where authorities have wished to change their minds, only to find that once they have acquired houses under slum clearance powers they have no alternative under existing Statute but to demolish them. This straitjacket is all the more galling in the light of the provisions for housing action areas set out in Part IV of the Bill, for authorities may well say that had these powers been available they would not have decided in favour of clearance.
This clause seeks to overcome this problem, and provides that an authority may apply to the Secretary of State for
1718
confirmation of a rehabilitation order in respect of any houses included in a slum clearance compulsory purchase order confirmed before three months after the coming into operation of this Bill. The rehabilitation order, if confirmed, will revoke the compulsory purchase order if the authority have not yet acquired the property, and will release them from the duty to demolish, while requiring them to achieve their rehabilitation. In consequence, the local authority will be required to pay additional compensation to those owners from whom they acquire houses for clearance at site value in recognition of the fact that the houses are now to be retained.
I should stress that this power will broadly apply only to property in Part III compulsory purchase orders already confirmed. In deciding any future action authorities will now know of the powers available to them under this Bill, and will take them into account in deciding whether or not to demolish. Authorities must in the future give earnest consideration to the problem of their older housing stock and how best it can be tackled, for if they decide that clearance is the answer there will be no turning back. I therefore urge authorities to consider carefully whether reconditioning and improvement is possible before resolving to clear areas of unfit houses.
Clauses 107B, 107C, 107D and 107E deal with the particular problem that arises when property acquired for demolition under the slum clearance powers in Part III of the Housing Act 1957 is subsequently listed as worthy of preservation. There is a clash of Statute here, and these clauses remove from the authority the duty to demolish in the case of a building found to be worthy of preservation while empowering them to apply, if they so choose, to the Secretary of State for his consent to the demolition of the building. Here again, additional compensation will have to be paid if houses bought for clearance are now to be retained. Clause 107G sets out the provisions covering the adjustments in compensation. Clause 107H provides that the period of three years within which the local authority can exercise its powers under a compulsory purchase order shall not be reduced by any period during which they are, under Clauses 107B, 107E or 107F, prevented from

1719
serving Notices to Treat. Clause 107A provides for the application of Clauses 107B to G to Scotland.
My Lords, in a matter of this complexity there are many points of detail, but as these provisions can reasonably be said to be acceptable to both sides I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have said sufficient to explain the purposes of these new clauses. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:
Listed buildings subject to compulsory purchase orders under Part HI of the Housing Act 1957.
107B.—(1) In this section references to a compulsory purchase order are to a compulsory purchase order made (at any time before or after the coming into operation of this section) under Part III of the Housing Act 1957.
(2) Where a building to which a compulsory purchase order applies is (at any time after the making of the order) included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the authority making the order may, subject to subsection (3) below, apply to the Secretary of State (and only to him) under section 55 of the Act of 1971 for his consent to the demolition of the building.
(3) No such application may be made by virtue of subsection (2) above after the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date—

(a) on which the building is included in the said list, or

(b) on which this section comes into force,

whichever is the later.
(4)The following provisions of this section shall have effect where—

(a) an application for consent has been made under the said section 55, by virtue of subsection (2) above, and has been refused, or

(b) in a case falling within subsection (3) above, the period of three months has expired without the authority having made such an application,

and in this section "relevant date" means the date of the refusal or, as the case may be, of the expiry of the period of three months.
(5)If, at the relevant date—

(a) the building has not vested in the authority, and

(b) no notice to treat has been served by the authority under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, in respect of any interest in the building,

the compulsory purchase order shall cease to have effect in relation to the building and, where applicable, the building shall cease to be comprised in a clearance area.
(6) Where a building, which was included in a clearance area solely by reason of its being unfit for human habitation, ceases to be com prised in the clearance area by virtue of sub section (5) above, the authority concerned shall, in respect of the building, forthwith—

(a) serve a notice under section 9 of the Act of 1957 (power of local authority to require repair of unfit houses), or

(b) make a closing order under Part II of that Act, whichever is appropriate; and in the application of this subsection to Scotland the words from "solely" to "habitation" shall be omitted.

(7) Where subsection (5) above does not apply, the authority shall cease to be subject to the duty imposed by Part III of the Act of 1957 to demolish the building, and in relation to any interest in the building which at the relevant date has not vested in the authority the compulsory order shall have effect as if—

(a) in the case of a house, it had been made and confirmed under Part V of the Act of 1957, and

(b) in any other case, it had been made and confirmed under Part VI of the Act of 1971.

(8) If the building, or any interest in the building, was vested in the authority at the relevant date it shall be treated—

(a) in the case of a house, as appropriated to the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1957, and

(b) in any other case, as appropriated to the purposes of Part VI of the Act of 1971.

(9) As respects a building falling within sub section (2) above, the authority shall not serve notice to treat under section 5 of the Compul sory Purchase Act 1965 in respect of the building until after the relevant date.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:
"Listed buildings in clearance areas acquired by agreement
107C—(1) Where Part III of the Housing Act 1957 applies to a building purchased by a local authority by agreement, and at any time

1721
(before or after the coming into operation of this section) the building is included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the authority may, subject to subsection (2) below, apply to the Secretary of State (and only to him) under section 55 of the Act of 1971 for his consent to the demolition of the building.
(2) No such application may be made by virtue of subsection (1) above after the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date—

(a) on which the building is included in the said list, or

(b) on which this section comes into force, whichever is the later.

(3) Where

(a) an application for consent has been made under the said section 55, by virtue of subsection (1) above, and has been refused, or

(b) the period of three months mentioned in subsection (2) above has expired without the authority having made such an application,

the authority shall cease to be subject to the duty, imposed by Part III of the Act of 1957, to demolish the building, which shall be treated—

(i) in the case of a house, as appropriated to the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1957, and

(ii) in any other case, as appropriated to the purposes of Part VI of the Act of 1971.").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD SANDYS: My Lords, with the approval of the House I think I should speak here on this whole group of Amendments. First of all, on behalf of those on these Benches I should like to give three very loud cheers for this group of new clauses. I think the background to this is essentially the very strong growth of the preservation movement, and perhaps I might delve into the past and quote to your Lordships from the debate on the Motion on historic towns and villages brought before your Lordships' House on April 11 last year by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said something extremely relevant in regard to this group of three clauses. He said:
"My Lords, I have three photographs here. One shows an old lady standing in several acres of Georgian rubble looking at what used to be her house, while behind stands a row of Georgian houses identical with what has been knocked down. So one can see how unnessary it was to knock down."—[Official Report, 11/4/73; col. 677.]
My Lords, these Amendments, taken together, permit a local authority to change its mind. In addition to the fact
1722
that since the end of March and the beginning of April the new local authorities have taken over, we can anticipate that the membership of planning committees will have changed very substantially, as also will the advice to which those planning committees are subject. Therefore, for the very large numbers of people concerned with both housing and the preservation of buildings—which can frequently be taken as subjects which go hand in hand—this series of Amendments can be highly beneficial.
My Lords, I should like to point to a matter which was raised in the same debate by the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford. He mentioned something in regard to call-in powers, which I hope the Amendments will in no way whittle away. He said:
"… the first point I want to make and it is my main ground for speaking: that in no circumstances must the Government be tempted, whatever their hope of the local authorities which they are setting up, to whittle down the power and, in proper cases, the duty of the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the application to develop."—[Official Report, 11/4/73; col. 731.]
We know that in all too many cases local authorities have taken very substantial areas of cities into their development plans and have wrought havoc, and we have listened with sorow to the debate on Bath, Lincoln and other places. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will add in his remarks—perhaps he will not say anything at this stage—but this is clearly giving local authorities the opportunity to vary the schemes which have been submitted and, perhaps, approved by the Minister and a second chance to alter their entire concept. With that we very much agree. Further, it allows a degree of flexibility which was not written into previous planning law and it is this special factor which I think should be warmly welcomed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Amendment moved:
After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:
Temporary provision for listed buildings subject to clearance orders
107D.—(1) In this section references to a "clearance order" are to a clearance order

1723
made (at any time before or after coming into operation of this section) under Part III of the Housing Act 1957.
(2) Where a building to which a clearance order applies is, at any time after the confirmation of the order, included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the authority making the order may, subject to subsection (3) below apply to the Secretary of State (and only to him) under section 55 of the Act of 1971 for his consent to the demolition of the building.
(3) No such application may be made by virtue of subsection (2) above after the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date—

(a)on which the building is included in the said list, or

(b)on which this section comes into force, whichever is the later.

(4) Where—

(a) an application for consent has been made under the said section 55, by virtue of subsection (2) above, and has been refused, or

(b) the period of three months mentioned in subsection (3) above has expired without the authority having made such an application,

the building shall cease to be comprised in a clearance area or to be subject to the clearance order.
(5) Where a building, which was included in a clearance area solely by reason of its being unfit for human habitation, ceases to be comprised in the clearance area by virtue of subsection (4) above, the authority concerned shall, in respect of the building, forthwith—

(a) serve a notice under section 9 of the Act of 1957 (power of local authority to require repair of unfit house), or

(b) make a closing order under Part II of that Act,

whichever is appropriate; and in the application of this subsection to Scotland the words from '"solely" to "habitation" shall be omitted.
(6) Where a payment in respect of a house has been made by a local authority under section 60 of, or Schedule 2 to. the Act of 1957, or Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1969, in connection with a clearance order, and by virtue of this section the house is excluded from the clearance area, then, if the person to whom the payment was made is entitled to an interest in the house he shall, subject to subsection (7) below, repay the payment to the authority on demand.
(7) No repayment shall be required by virtue of subsection (6) above in a case where the authority have made a closing order in respect of the house and—

(a) no appeal has, within the time allowed, been made against the making of the order, or

1724

(b) such an appeal has been made and has failed."—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause:
"Application of provisions about listed buildings to buildings in conservation areas
107E.—(1) Sections 107B. 107C and 107D above shall, with the modifications mentioned in subsection (2) below, have effect in relation to buildings subject to directions made and confirmed under section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 (control of demolition in conservation areas in England and Wales) as they have effect in relation to listed buildings.
(2) The modifications subject to which those sections are to have effect by virtue of subsection (1) above are—

(a) for references to section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 there shall be substituted references to that section as applied by Schedule 2 to the Act of 1972; and

(b) for references to a building being included in a list under section 54 of the Act of 1971 there shall be substituted references to a building being subject to a direction made and confirmed under section 8 of the Act of 1972".—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:
Temporary provision for rehabilitation of unfit houses
107F.—(1) This section applies to any building comprised in a clearance area under Part HI of the Housing Act 1957 which—

(a) at any time before the date on which this section comes into operation, has been purchased by agreement by the local authority in whose area the clearance area falls, or

(b) is subject to a compulsory purchase order—

(i) made at any time before that date under the said Part III, and

(ii) which, at any time before the expiry of the period of three months beginning with that date, has been confirmed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Act of 1957.

(2) Where any building to which this section applies—

(a) was included in the clearance area solely by reason of its being unfit for human habitation. and

1725

(b) in the opinion of the authority concerned is capable of being, and ought to be, improved to the full standard,

the authority may, subject to the provisions of this section and of Schedule 8 to this Act, make and submit to the Secretary of State an order under this section (a "rehabilitation order") in relation to that building.
(3) In subsection (2) above "full standard" in England and Wales means the standard attained by a dwelling in respect of which the conditions mentioned in section 65(2) of this Act are fulfilled and in Scotland means the standard specified by virtue of section 16(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974; and in the application to Scotland of subsection (2)(a) above the words from "solely" to "habitation" shall be omitted.
(4) Schedule 8 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of supplementing the provisions of this section.").—(Lord Hughes)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:

Compensation
107G.—(1) It is hereby declared that where, under section 107A above, or Schedule 8 to this Act, a compulsory purchase order is to be treated as made under Part V of The Housing Act 1957 or Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land comprised in the compulsory purchase order is to be assessed in accordance with the provisions applying to a compulsory acquisition under the said Part V (or, as the case may be, the said Part VI).
(2) Where under section 107B above, or Schedule 8 to this Act, land or any interest in land within a clearance area is to be treated as appropriated by a local authority to the purposes of the said Part V, compensation for its compulsory acquisition shall (where it increases the amount) be assessed or reassessed in accordance with the provisions applying to a compulsory acquisition under the said Part V.
(3) Where under section 107C above or Schedule 8 to this Act, any interest in land acquired by a local authority by agreement (after the declaration of the clearance area) is to be treated as appropriated for the purposes of the said Part V—

(a) compensation shall (where subsection (2) above would have increased the amount) be assessed and paid as if the acquisition were a compulsory acquisition, under the said Part III, to which subsection (2) applied, but

(b) there shall be deducted from the amount of compensation so payable any amount previously paid in respect of the acquisition of that interest by the authority.

(4) Where subsection (2) or subsection (3) above applies, the local authority shall serve on the person entitled to the compensation a notice in the prescribed form giving particulars of the amount of compensation payable in accordance with the provisions applying to a compulsory acquisition under the said Part V, and if the person served does not within twenty-one days from service of the notice accept the particulars, or if he disputes the amount stated, the question of disputed compensation shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
(5) The notice shall be served not later than six months after (as the case may be)—

(a) the relevant date as defined in section 107B above, or

(b) confirmation of the rehabilitation order,

and section 30 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (service of notices) shall apply to the notice.
(6) Subsection (2) above shall be left out of account in considering whether under section 22 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 compensation has been properly paid for the land; and accordingly subsection (2) above shall not prevent an acquiring authority from remaining in undisputed possession of the land.
(7) Where subsection (2) above makes an increase in compensation to be assessed in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (absent and untraced owners)

(a) a deed poll executed under paragraph 2(2) of that Schedule before the latest date for service of a notice under subsection (4) above shall not be invalid because the increase in compensation had not been paid. and

(b) it shall be the duty of the local authority not later than six months after the said date to proceed under the said Schedule 2 and pay the proper additional amount into court.

(8) In Scotland where subsection (2) makes an increase in compensation to be assessed in accordance with sections 56 to 60 and 63 of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1845 (provisions dealing with absent and untraced owners)—

(a) a notarial instrument executed under section 76 of that Act before the latest date for service of a notice under subsection (4) above shall not be invalid because the increase in compensation had not been paid and

(b) it shall be the duty of the local authority not later than six months after the said date to proceed under the said sections and pay the proper additional amount into the Bank.

(9)Any sum payable by virtue of this section shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under section 32 of the Land Compensation. Act 1961 from the time of entry by the local authority on the land, or from vesting of the land or interest, which ever is the earlier, until payment.
(10) In this section references to an increase in compensation shall be read as if payments under—

(a) sections 60 and 61 of and Schedule 2 to the Act of 1957 (payments in respect of well-maintained houses and payments to owner-occupiers);

(b) section 63(1) of the Act of 1957 or section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (allowances to persons displaced);

(c) section 68 of and Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1969 (payments to owner-occupiers and others in respect of unfit houses purchased or demolished); and

(d) section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (disturbance payments for persons without compensationable interests),

and any extra-statutory payments made by way of additional compensation were, to the extent that they were made to the person holding the interest in question, compensation in respect of the compulsory purchase.
(11) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and any order under this subsection shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").—(Lord Hughes.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. On page 35, the reference in subsection (7)(a) to "subsection (4) above" should be to "subsection (5) above".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
Amendment of section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965
107. In section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (time limits for exercising powers under compulsory purchase orders) there shall be added at the end, the following paragraph:
"For the purposes of this section no account shall be taken of any period during which an authority are, by virtue of section 107B, 107E or 107F of the Housing Act 1974 (which relate among other things to unfit buildings in clearance or conservation areas), prevented from serving notice to treat under section 5 of this Act,
and the same amendment shall be made to section 116 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 with the substitution for the reference to section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 of a reference to section 17 of the said Act of 1845."—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Raising of rateable value limits for enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967]:
5.7 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 94, line 19, leave out from ("day)") to end of line 30 and insert ("after the words" rent and" there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsections (5) and (6) below" and after subsection (4) there shall be added the following subsections:
"(5) If, in relation to any house and premises, the appropriate day for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above falls on or after 1st April 1973 that subsection shall have effect in relation to the house and premises,—

(a) in a case where the tenancy was created on or before 18th February 1966, as if for the sums of £200 and £400 specified in that subsection there were substituted respectively the sums of £750 and £1,500; and

(b) in a case where the tenancy was created after 18th February 1966, as if for those sums of £200 and £400 there were substituted respectively the sums of £500 and £1,000.

(6) If, in relation to any house and premises,—

(a) the appropriate day for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above falls before 1st April 1973, and

(b) the rateable value of the house and premises on the appropriate day was more than £200 or, if it was then in Greater London, £400, and

(c) the tenancy was created on or before 18th February 1966,

subsection (1)(a) above shall have effect in relation to the house and premises as if for the reference to the appropriate day there were substituted a reference to 1st April 1973 and as if for the sums of £200 and £400 specified in that subsection there were substituted respectively the sums of £750 and £1,500".
(1A) In any case where, by virtue only of the amendments of section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 effected by subsection (1) above, the right specified in subsection (I) of that section is conferred on a tenant, section 19 of that Act (retention of management powers for general benefit of neighbourhood) shall have effect in relation to the house and premises to which the tenant's right applies as if for the references in subsection (1) of that section to an application made within two years beginning with the commencement of Part I of that Act there were substituted a reference to an application made within two years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment is to make a number of technical Amendments to sort out the position which arose from the Amendments made in Committee in another place. This is one way in which

1729
the matter can be dealt with, but the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has proposed in Amendment No. 48 another way of dealing with the matter. In that Amendment he proposes to restore the Bill to what was originally proposed, and in it his name is associated with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed both these Amendments together. We could then find what is the feeling of the House as to whether the Bill should be amended one way or the other. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, would want Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 discussed at the same time, though they are not an alternative to Amendment No. 47. Amendment No. 48 would be an alternative to Amendment No. 47, but the other two are not. That is all I propose to say at this stage, because I certainly wish to learn what is the feeling of the House after the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have spoken to Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to raise a point of procedure. My Amendment No. 49 would, in my opinion, apply even if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull were carried. I should therefore like to move it separately and I reserve my right to speak later.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, in response to the gracious invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I want to speak about Amendment No. 48, which stands in my name and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. In this debate we are discussing the dividing line between poor people and rich people, in the advantage that we give to poorer people when they are wiping out a lease. The story is a simple one. We have drafted our Amendment because we feel that the Amendment which was carried in the House of Commons went further than was in the minds of those who carried it, and if our Amendment is carried we shall be back at the position which we were in before the clause was amended. We shall also be in accordance with the 1967 Act of the previous Government.
In no way can this be said to be anything like a Party point; if it were I
1730
would not be making it. As the clause before it was amended appeared before the Committee it was regarded as a mere technical modernisation of what was carried in the 1967 Act. So little was it heeded that there was no Explanatory Memorandum about it. As the Act of 1967 stands, the holder of a long lease is entitled to acquire the reversion compulsorily on advantageous terms if the rateable value of the house and premises on what is called "the appropriate day" did not exceed £400 in London or £200 elsewhere. The appropriate day under the 1967 Act is March 23, 1965.
The rateable values of 1965 are obviously out of date, but that does not affect the principle. Assuming that a dividing line is needed between the poorer who qualify for this capital bonus and the rich who do not, the 1965 rateable value is as good as any other so long as the premises remain the same. Any revaluation should in principle, leave the same premises on the same side of the line as between richer people and poorer people. However, the appropriate day is not always March 23, 1965. Under Section 1(4) of the Act of 1967, which attracts Section 43(3) of the Rent Act 1965, the appropriate day for premises which were not valued in the valuation list in force on March 23, 1965, is the first day thereafter on which they are valued in the valuation list. These are rare cases, but since the revaluation which came into force on April 1, 1973, they produce a wrong result. The appropriate day falls within a period when rateable values are on average 250 per cent. above those current in 1965 but the limits of value are still over 1965.
The original clause tried to put that right—and did put it right as I think is agreed by everybody on the Commons Committee—by substituting £1,000 for £400 and £500 for £200 in those circumstances. But the clause we now have before us goes much further. It substitutes April 1, 1973, for March 23, 1965, as the normal appropriate day on which rateable values shall be ascertained, raising the limits of rateable value, as I said, to £1,000 and £500 in the two cases. This raises no great issue of principle on the assumption that the new limits are broadly comparable with £400 and £200 in terms of 1965 rateable values, but it does mean that all existing leases near

1731
the original limit will have to be reexamined, and it may be found in many individual cases that an existing right to enfranchise a lease is lost or a new right is created.
Secondly—and this is the point which I regard as much more important—a distinction is drawn between leases granted before and after March 23, 1965. For those granted on or before that date the limits of rateable value are increased by 50 per cent. up to £1.500 in London and £750 elsewhere in terms of the 1973 valuation list. The effect of this is to extend the benefit of the Act retrospectively to those relatively few leaseholders of properties in the most expensive areas of the country, and particularly expensive areas in other parts of the country, which were originally excluded. I speak as one who loves Dulwich, and is very proud that Alleyn, Shakespeare's fellow actor, founded the great Dulwich Charity which serves the needs of education and other charitable institutions in Dulwich and elsewhere in London. The estate comprises some 1,500 acres in a desirable residential district. Out of nearly 3,000 houses held from the estate on long lease, all except 20 are liable to expropriation under the Act of 1967 as originally enacted. This will change. The effect of Clause 109 as it stands would be to enable the richest people in the district to get richer still, and they would get richer at the expense of the charities which are supported by the estates. This would affect tenants too.
The leases now to receive the benefit of the new Act will have been changing hands, like other leases, at prices related to the rights which the seller and the lessee thought existed but which would be changed by this Act. A man who has just sold a lease of a properly above the limit of rateable value will not be pleased to learn that under the new Act the buyer is going to receive a retrospective bonus at the expense of the landlord. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and myself, think that the simple Amendment we have proposed prevents retrospective bonanzas for rich persons and I hope the House will support it.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, it is not very often, if ever, that I have disagreed with my noble friend. I still call him my noble friend in spite of the fact that he is
1732
sitting on the Cross-Benches. On this occasion I categorically oppose what he says because it strikes at the very root of what we in our Party, and I think reasonable people throughout the whole of our political thinking, have considered to be the important feature about leasehold reform. Why has it been fought for for so many years? Why did he and I and many others strive year after year in order to get leaseholds enfranchised? I remember 40 or 50 years ago when we were crying out loudly that a person who held a long lease and considered it to be his home was perfectly entitled morally to claim that he should have the right to retain those premises and to use them, if he wanted, as his home in future. That, after all, was the basis on which leasehold reform came into existence.
My noble friend says that the rich will get richer—he did not say that the poor will get poorer; he said the rich will get richer. Who is rich? Is a person whose rateable value to-day is £1,500 really a rich person? Who are the people we are seeking to benefit by this Amendment, which after all is a tidying Amendment? They are not the richest people at all. They are middle-class people, many of whom were excluded from the benefit of the Leasehold Reform Act because they had improved their premises and made them of a rateable value higher than the next door person who had not carried out any improvements. It is sheer nonsense.
We can see in the streets men and women who are not able to buy their freeholds (I do not know whether my noble friend will remember Henry George's theory which so many of us were so keen about), who have put their houses into a better condition or who have built a garage or something of that sort, with the consequence that their rateable value has gone up beyond that of their next-door neighbour. This is a fact. These arc not myths; this is true. The result is that they are not able to buy their freeholds, whereas the next-door neighbour is. Is that not sheer nonsense? Is it not something that must be remedied?
Many of us think that people who have long leases, no matter what the rateable value may be, should be entitled to acquire the freehold. The Bill as it stands, and with the Amendment that is proposed, would not carry it so far as that,

1733
but it certainly carries it into the range of those who cannot be put into the category of the rich and brings it within the range of the so-called middle-class individuals whose rates have gone up by leaps and bounds and who, under the old rateable values, were very badly done by. Some of us have striven for a long time to try to get that evil removed. Now that it has been successful and the Government themselves have been reasonably moved by the Amendment which was proposed in the House of Commons and which they have now accepted—as I say, changed in form but not in principle—I see no reason why anyone should feel that there is a disadvantage to any person or persons.
Let me put this in simple terms. What my noble friend was saying was that this lends itself to speculation. That is what he had in his mind. But whichever way it goes it is speculation. If the landlord makes a pile of money because he is able to sell at a higher figure a property to which he has added nothing at all in the course of very many years, because something has been added to it by somebody else, you cannot call that a matter of speculation. But if a tenant improved the property, that is his home. If he cannot keep his home, if he is not secure, then he has to buy another home and buy it at the higher level. Consequently he gets no benefit at all, because whatever price may be obtained for the house that he is in, if at any time he has to lease it he has to pay an even higher price for alternative accommodation.
This is a question of a home. Are we entitled to deprive an individual who for many years has been paying rent, who has looked after the house—and it is a house, not a flat—and whose family has been brought up in it, of the continuance of having the home? Even if he does sell and obtains a profit, he would naturally have to utilise that profit to buy a similar home.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords. surely the noble Lord can explain to the House that at the end of a long lease the leaseholder would have the right to remain in that house under rent provision?
LORD JANNER: My Lords, that is precisely what those who are moving this
1734
Amendment have not realised. They have failed to appreciate the fact that they are entitled to retain their home but that they can be charged much higher rentals than they were paying before. If it is correct that security should be maintained at a higher level of rateable values for people who rent, surely that is a principle which ought to be adopted in a similar way in respect of leasehold reform and the obtaining of the freeholds. That is the basis of this Government Amendment—that it would put this matter on an equal level with regard to rateable values in respect of security and rent.
One could speak for a very long time and I do not want to burden the House with a very long speech, but some of us feel very strongly about this matter. I remember in my early days in another place, at a time when Lloyd George was stampeding through the country on the leasehold reform business, I noticed with anguish how difficult it was and how long it took to get leasehold enfranchisement brought about. In my opinion, we have no right on a moral basis, and if we respect family life, to make it impossible for a person to purchase the freehold of a property so that he and his family, or her family, whichever it may be, can continue to have a peaceful existence. I appeal to the noble Lords who are moving this Amendment to look at this matter in that light. It is not just a question of money. It is not just a question of how much a person is going to benefit; it is a question of whether family life is to be allowed to continue under proper conditions.
Of course I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I realise that some charities will suffer because they would not have to buy additional houses for themselves to live in. That is the whole point. In the main it is not a question of charities here but a question of speculative landlords whoever and wherever they may be. May I say to my noble friend that the position in Dulwich to-day is a very sad one. I respectfully suggest to him that for ground rent's to-day, in respect of places where tenants have applied for 50-year leases instead of having the freehold, enormous sums, outrageous sums are being asked. There is a lone contest going on about that. All these circumstances have to be taken

1735
into consideration. I am very happy that the Government themselves realised this by accepting the Amendment put down in the other place and by now asking us to accept it, and I hope that those who are moving this Amendment will realise that that action is not one which is helpful to the community as a whole but, on the contrary, is very disruptive.
5.30 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hesitate to take your Lordships' time in adding to what has already been said, principally because I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Janner has said. He and I in another place were involved in the genesis of the 1967 Act. My understanding of its purpose is precisely as he has stated. I sat, I think, for four constituencies, one of them was one in which the problem of leasehold reform was particularly prominent. Over and over again, I met people living in premises subject to the old building leases, some granted in 1860, 1870 and so on, who thought the houses were in every sense their own. It was a kind of legal outrage and artificiality which enabled somebody else to say, "This is not your home; the bricks and mortar belong to me; the land on which you walk and the roof under which you sleep is something which is not your home at all. It is a species of property which, in the ultimate resort, is vested in me. "That is the genesis of this Act and the strong justification for it. I was glad to see it go on the Statute Book and we all owe a great debt to the late Richard Crossman for his sterling work in piloting it through the other place before it came to your Lordships' House.
Having said that, I want to ask my noble friend Lord Hughes one or two questions. If is relevant, when we are considering what are the appropriate rateable limits which should be applicable for the purpose of Section 1 of the 1967 Act, to remember that the value of the pound has depreciated by something like half in the past ten years. So an alteration in the rateable limits would seem for that reason, if for no other, not altogether inappropriate. I do not follow why in the original Clause 109 of the Bill that we are now discussing
1736
a distinction is made between tenancies which were brought into being before March 23, 1965, and those brought into being after that date. I do not discern any logical reason for that. I should like to ask my noble friend, if he has it in his brief, to give some indication to me as to why that distinction is drawn. Why is it that in the case of tenancies granted after March 23, 1965, the increase in the rateable limits which are to be appropriate under Clause 109 of the Bill are less than the increase in the rateable limits which are to be appropriate in the case of long tenancies on low rents granted before that date? I do not understand the logic of that.
So far as I can see, comparing Amendment No. 47 with the original Clause 109, in substance all the Amendment does is say that the appropriate date within the meaning of Subsection (4) of Section 1 of the 1967 Act is always to be treated as if it was April, 1973, whatever its actual date was. I do not want to go in detail through the Amendment; that seems to be the effect of it. The only other effect of any substance that seems to be appropriate is that it alters the date of March 23, 1965, which is the dividing line between the tenancy granted before and the tenancy granted after, to February, 1966. To the extent that it brings that date forward that is a desirable change. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give some indication as to what is the Government's probably sound thinking, which induces my noble friend to propose that that date should be altered from March, 1965, to February, 1966. I do not oppose that. On the contrary, I rather welcome it. This creates a puzzle in the minds of a number of persons affected. One speaks entirely on one's own responsibility in this House, but I am prompted to put that question by a puzzled citizen who approached me. I found it puzzling when I studied the matter. Probably a large number of those who are affected would like to know the Government's thinking on the matter.
5.35 p.m.
LORD MONSON: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Maybray-King and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I can do no better than quote the words of the

1737
noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when this clause was being debated in Committee:
"The Government's reasons for opposing the Amendment carried in another place were that a house outside the present rateable 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 be able to afford freeholds of smaller houses."
I have been advised by a senior partner in a well known firm of estate agents that the profit to be expected by somebody exercising their rights of enfranchisement, if this clause goes through unamended, may be £8,000 nett of all outgoings. If they were to sell their houses immediately after enfranchising they would be subject to capital gains tax at 30 per cent. Few people would baulk at paying £2,400 in tax provided they could see an almost immediate profit of £5,600.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, said it would be mainly middle class people who would benefit from the unamended clause. I am advised the houses in this category would tend to sell in the London area for £50,000 upwards. The noble Lords, Lord Janner and Lord Stow Hill, talked about the principles of not depriving people of their homes. Flats, whatever their rateable value, have never been eligible for leasehold enfranchisement. People in rented accommodation of all kinds—council houses or private rented accommodation—do not have the same security as when they own their houses freehold. No doubt the totally unexpected bonus that this clause, if unamended, would confer, would be highly welcome to a good number of people. But in exactly the same way if the Price Commission were to order Harrods and Fortnum and Masons to reduce the price of caviar and paté de foi gras by 50 per cent., this would also bring pleasure to many people. I suggest that very few who would benefit from this would be bus drivers or bank clerks. The people who would suffer would be the shareholders of the House of Fraser and so on. There are some well-off shareholders, but others are of very modest means, exactly like the beneficiaries of the Dulwich Trust cited by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. I hope that your Lordships will support this Amendment.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, may I support the very powerful moving of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. Also may I declare straight away a professional interest in this subject. At this stage of the Bill, this clause seems to present to the House something of a dilemma. I believe that we have three choices. First, we have the choice of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. Basically it would restore the clause as it was originally drafted by the Government before it went into the Committee of another place. Indeed, it would stir no further muddy leasehold waters. Secondly, we could support the Government's Amendment which seems, at some 24 hours' notice, simply to put into legal drafting the Amendment which was moved in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has reminded us, the Amendment, which the Government earnestly declared on that occasion would create a monstrous imbalance within the 1967 Act, would lead to harmful speculation in the housing field, with wholly unjustifiable gains for certain leaseholders. Thirdly, it seems that we could support my noble friend Lady Young whose Amendment offers a two-tier form of compensation which I am advised has certain defects so far as the valuation profession is concerned.
I believe that the issue before the House is a simple one. It is whether or not the present rules of compensation under the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act 1967 were designed and geared for the higher-priced property which the new rateable value limits of £1,500 and £750 that the Government and, indeed, my noble friend are proposing would cater for. By those of us who took part in the deliberations on the 1967 Act, it will be remembered that the Bill introduced at that time was designed specifically to meet urgent social and security cases, particularly in South Wales. That was the initial purpose of the Bill. As many of your Lordships will remember, the Bill was hotly contentious. It gave for the first time compulsory rights to one individual against another individual's property. Secondly, it was contentious because it laid down a compensation formula which was highly complicated and

1739
which only the passage of time and successive Lands Tribunal cases has shown to be minimal and, indeed, in certain cases almost confiscatory.
My Lords, what would be the result if the House were to accept the Government's Amendment? What types of houses are involved and what would be the consequences for the leaseholder and the freeholder? I have tried to obtain examples to illustrate the case as I see it if the Government's Amendment is accepted. In Central London we are dealing with houses valued within the region of £80,000 to £120,000. In Paddington, Pimlico, Chelsea and St. John's Wood, this is the kind of value which can be reached in the case of a house with a rateable value limit of £1,500.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, at the moment the price of houses is extremely speculative. Is the noble Earl talking about the prices which houses fetched six months or a year ago, or is he talking about the value which houses would fetch if they were put to auction to-day?
THE EARL Of KINNOULL: My Lords, it is a valid point which my noble friend Lord Hawke has made. In fact, I am quoting to-day's prices and the evidence I have before me was given to me by two firms of leading estate agents in London. The effect in one case, if the present Amendment of the Government were accepted, would be this. There is a house in W.2. with a present rateable value of £1,100; its estimated present leasehold value is £8,000. The estimated enfranchisement compensation which the. leaseholder would be entitled to claim under the clause proposed by the Government would be £20,000, and the freehold value is estimated at £65,000. According to my rather weak mathematics, that would give a profit of some £37,000 to the leaseholder, simply by applying under this clause to be allowed to purchase the freehold.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain what profit it would give to the landlord if what he is asking for were to prevail?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords. I am surprised at the question of the
1740
noble Lord, Lord Janner, because I know he is a very eminent solicitor and that he knows how the values of properties work. The noble Lord knows that when a freeholder has a long lease which is shortly to come to an end it has considerable value in the current market. Therefore, I do not really see the purpose of the noble Lord's question.
The second property which I should like to mention to the House is a property in St. John's Wood. The rateable value of that property is £1,472, and in that case we are reaching almost the limit of the clause suggested by the Government. It is a block of flats, and I think I am correct in saying that if the owner of the leasehold who occupies one fat is able to get the other flats vacant, under the Leasehold Reform Act he has the right to apply to the freeholder to acquire the freehold. The enfranchisement compensation has been estimated at £30,000, and the full freehold value of the flats when empty is £120,000. Therefore, we see that in that case the iease-holder could play with £90.000; he would have £90,000 with which to negotiate with the other tenants to leave the flats. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a considerable sum. Having given these two examples, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether this is equitable and whether it is what the Government really want?
In Outer London—I have taken areas like Finsbury, Tottenham and Haringey—I am advised that the intended £1,500 limit virtually would engulf 85 per cent. of all leasehold houses, and in the countryside the net of £750 would effectively carry all but the very large houses.
My Lords, in Committee in another place the Government argued against the principle of the Amendment. As I understand it, there were two arguments. The first was house speculation. I believe that the two cases which I have produced eminently show the kind of speculation which could go on. Secondly, they said that they were reviewing the whole of the working of the Leasehold Reform Act. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, could amplify that further. but it seems very wrong in a hastily drawn clause in a Housing Bill, fundamentally to affect the Leasehold Reform Act.

1741
May I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether it is really the intention of the Government to press their Amendment now? What is the evidence of hardship for leaseholders, particularly in the higher bracket? That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about rateable values of £1,000 and under £1,000. We are talking of rateable values of between £1,000 and £1,500. What is the evidence of hardship?
I should be very interested to know whether the advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, have any evidence of that, because the real evidence of hardship is not on the leaseholder but on the freeholder, and on individuals who at the moment have a market value for their properties. If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, were not accepted by the House, that figure would disappear.
The second choice before the House, as I see it, is that in the Amendment suggested by my noble friend Lady Young. I have the greatest respect for my noble friend and for the way in which she has conducted a searching and critical appraisal of housing legislation which has gone through this House recently. It has been highly complicated and required a great deal of effort from her. She has led us on this side of the House extremely well with skill, tenacity and patience. But I hope she will not be offended when I say that on this occasion I feel that her Amendment, which sets out to lessen the iniquity of the Government's proposal on compensation, would not really succeed in practical compensation benefits which I believe she desires.
I say that on the basis—again, without being repetitive—of two further examples which were worked out for me only last night following a study of my noble friend's Amendment. In one case the property was in central London. It had a ground rent—
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to intervene for a moment? We are not dealing with that Amendment at all. We have a lot to say on that Amendment. With the greatest respect, it would be grossly unfair to deal with that Amendment in the course of discussion of the Amendment we are dealing with at the moment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, the reason I am commenting on my noble friend's Amendment is that in her proposal the rateable value limit in London would be £1,500, and the rateable value proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would also be £1,500 in Central London. The rateable value in the country in my noble friend's Amendment would be £750, and in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in it would be £750. In the cases I have been given, which have been worked out to demonstrate the difference in compensation that would arise under the existing rules of the 1967 Act and the suggested formula under the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Young, the position would be as follows. In the case of the property in Central London, the ground rent is £190, the leasehold value is estimated at £8,000, the freehold vacant possession value is £65,000. Under the existing formula the compensation for the freehold would be £20,000 and the tenant's profit would be in the region of £37,000, but under my noble friend's formula it would be £22,000—a difference of only £2,000.
My Lords, I am also advised by the valuation profession that under my noble friend's Amendment there is one part in subsection 1(c) which they would con sider very contentious. This is the assumption that the leaseholder has no liability for repair or maintenance, even if that condition is in the lease. This is an assumption which a valuer would have to make under my noble friend's Amendment. This means, in practice, that when a leaseholder let a house fall into a state of decay he would benefit in compensation more than if it were in good order.
My Lords, I sincerely hope the House will accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, because I believe there are two fundamental reasons for doing so. The first is that there has been no evidence, so far as I can see, of any hardship suffered by leaseholders; and, indeed, there is a great deal of evidence, as the noble Lord so movingly said, of hardship that will be suffered by freeholders. The reason for this is simply the question of the compen sation and present rules that govern compensation under the 1967 Act. The second reason is that in a Housing Bill

1743
it is fundamentally wrong to alter the balance in the major Act of 1967 by a hastily drafted clause such as that which lies before us. For these two, as I believe, compelling reasons, I urge your Lordships to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King.
5.56 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I do not usually find myself having any contention at all with the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, but his reference, basing his case on a particular example and his love of Dulwich, was unfortunate. It places some of us in a difficult personal situation Although I know that the House has much to do, I propose to put the position which I put to him when the noble Lord was in the Chair in discussion on the 1967 Act.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that this arose almost by chance because of the falling in of working-class leases in South Wales. I fought the Election of 1929 very largely on leasehold enfranchisement, which was a main part of the Liberal Party programme at that time—45 years ago. When I went to the House of Commons in 1945, I became chairman of an ad hoc Labour Party committee set up to consider the implications of leasehold reform which sat very regularly interviewing Ministers. I say, quite frankly, that it was a pressure committee. To an extent, it was a Party committee and it did not profess to be impartial, but it pressed for the appointment of an impartial committee and for an impartial investigation, and finally that committee was set up.
I did not come here to-day with the slightest intention of speaking, except to look at the Amendment which I understood was in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because of correspondence I had from Hampstead—certainly nothing to do with Dulwich. I wonder whether or not rather heavy weather is being made of this. I was a member of the Select Committee under Lord Uthwatt which began to deal wth business leases and that very great man, for whom I had a profound affection, died before our labours were completed. He was succeeded by Lord Jenkins who, alas, has also gone to join the great majority, and who was a brilliant expert on the
1744
matter. I think he knew more about leasehold law than almost any living man, but he did not share our views at all. He would not mind my saying that. He was quite clear that he did not believe in leasehold enfranchisement, and he thought the landlords would have a very hard deal by leasehold reform for working-class houses in South Wales or anywhere else. He was a very distinguished, honest, able and courteous man.
So the minority report bore only two names, and I am the only survivor, unfortunately, of those two. The future Lord Justice Ungoed-Thomas and I helped to prepare the minority report. Up to that time, I had never had any personal interest of any kind in leasehold. We were very strict about these things in those days. Sometimes I wonder whether we are still as strict to-day. So when I bought a leasehold house, my own house, in Dulwich in January, 1956, I considered myself as being disqualified to take an active part in the matter. When the debate opened in 1967, I made a personal explanation with the permission of the noble Lord, then Mr. Speaker, saying that I would not take any part in the discussion of that Bill.
It was a decision which I have since bitterly regretted. I think I was over-punctilious, because at that time I knew a great deal about the problem which was not only affecting South Wales. The only matter I mentioned in the whole course of that debate was the 999 years' lease, the special problem of Oldham, because in that problem the tenant rarely finds who the landlord is. The tenants cannot pay any rent and they cannot do any repairs without permission, so we made a little Amendment in connection with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, in his emphasis on that point, now puts me in the position that I am either to appear to be taking a biased position, or going back on principles that I have advocated for a great many years. I was greatly dissatisfied with the 1967 Act and so were many tenants. All we gave them was temporary protection and the prospects of litigation, and of course a management order which in Dulwich, I agree, is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has spoken particularly to-day about Dulwich, but I shall try to abstain from speaking about

1745
it. However, I am sure he will not misunderstand my use of the word when I say that he has presented "selected" figures. I do not mean that he has selected them, but I have no doubt that we have all been presented with selected figures from Hampstead, for instance.
I received a circular setting out the grievances and giving the figures, and I do not doubt for a moment that the figures have been selected and are, in fact, specially hard cases. However, I would say that the houses in Dulwich to which I understand he is really referring, have nearly all been erected in the last few years; or, at any rate, since I went there in 1956. They all surround me. Mine is the last slum house in the road and is an eyesore, because my house was built at the time when Pissaro sat on the opposite side of the road painting Dulwich Church, and Pissaro was here to escape service in the Franco-German war. It has suffered a good deal of dilapidation since, and I am wondering just what will happen to me under a management order. But I have no quarrel at all. Several of the governors are personal friends of mine, and since recent—and not so recent—changes of staff I have had the utmost courtesy. I have no complaint and I do not want to say anything other than what is fair.
One thing I can say that is fair is that the admirable houses which were built, perhaps, ten years ago, at a guess—less, I think—have quite often already changed hands several times at a profit, and the people buying them now are facing burdens which are likely to engulf them, because now they are paying 13 per cent. interest on a mortgage, and the prices which boomed when the last Government were in power are now showing a recession, as I understand the position. I hope that Dulwich will be preserved, with the great amenities that the college governors have provided, including one of the most charming picture galleries, magnificent parks and so on. But it is not good enough to say that great advantages have been conferred on the tenants by the 1967 Act. In some cases, of course, it will work out that way, but in many cases great burdens and great fears are in the minds and hearts of the tenants.
I do not say that necessarily about Dulwich, I do say that here we are facing
1746
special difficulties at the moment, and already more threats are being murmured about our aggressive intentions, our alterations to clauses, and so on. This was agreed at Committee stage and I am bound to say, having listened to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, to whom I always listen with very special attention, and to my noble friend Lord Janner, to whom I shall have to say the same now or he will be annoyed, that I feel justified on this occasion in voting against the Amendment if the occasion arises.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I speak with considerable reserve on these complicated matters, but I happen to be a trustee of an ancient and well-known charity which owns assets, from the rents of which we pay a great deal of money every year to various admirable charitable objects. In listening to this debate I cannot help feeling—although I may be wrong, of course—that those assets will be endangered by this clause. I know that in the past the noble and learned Lords of this House have always been jealous about any attacks from any quarter on charities. I must confess that I feel uneasy about the position here, and unless I can be assured that charities such as I am referring to are exempted in some way from the operation of this clause, I shall feel strongly in favour of voting with my noble friend Lord Maybray-King.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I rise in support of this Amendment, and I think I should declare my interest in having leasehold interests outside London. I believe that we should get back to the original Leasehold Act and not try to alter this very complicated piece of legislation, especially, as I gather that it has been done in a short time and at rather short notice. We are dealing here with two different animals, and I believe that leaseholders and lessees come under the Leasehold Reform Act. However, having said that I believe that this very sensible Amendment should be supported. This would give time for this Part of the Bill to be looked at again. By increasing the rateable value, it is well-known that a different class of property comes within the ambit of the legislation, which was not originally intended, and I think it is unfair that the new freeholders should collect such a

1747
large bounty. So far as I know it was intended—and not altered—that only houses within the application of the Rent Acts should be enfranchised. This Amendment observes the existing position and, at the same time, allows for change in the rateable value.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, we have had a very long debate on this matter and I can well understand the reason for it. One fact which has daily become clearer to me is what an extremely complicated and technical subject the whole question of leasehold enfranchisement is, on which it is necessary to tread extremely carefully. I cannot recall having more correspondence in so short a space of time as I have had on this matter, and I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who supports Amendment No. 48, that if he has no evidence of any hardship that would be caused he should look at my file.
It may well be, as has been said, that people have picked out hard cases, but a number of cases have been drawn to my attention, particularly in Hampstead, and I also have in front of me a long letter from Cambridge, indicating people who would be seriously affected were Amendment No. 47 not carried. I cannot speak with all the personal experience that other noble Lords have of all parts of the country, but I know that there are a great many leasehold houses in Oxford and there is a situation in which people feel strongly about leasehold enfranchisement. So if one is trying to weigh up the balance, I can see the difficulties facing the great estates and the charities on this matter, but I also see the difficulties of a great many individuals, and, in fairness, I think one must put both sides of the case in this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, made very clear in his speech, the reason why the rateable value limits were fixed originally in the Bill of the last Government and maintained in the present Housing Bill is, as I understand, that they exactly reflect the two and a half times increase in rateable values from 1965. Of course, it was on the 1965 rateable values that the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act was based.
On an Amendment moved at the Com-mittee stage in another place by my
1748
honourable friend Mr. Rossi, these two limits were to be raised to £1,500 in Greater London and £750 elsewhere. I think I am right in saying that that; Amendment received all Party support in that Committee, and it was therefore carried. I am, therefore, very glad to suport to-day Amendment No. 47 which was moved some time ago now by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. One of the reasons why there has been a great deal of apprehension expressed by the charities and by a great many of the landowners is that there was some doubt in the wording of the original Amendment by Mr. Rossi. The first reason why I am grateful for the Government's Amendment is that it removes this doubt.
As I understand the position, those who are entitled to enfranchise themselves under Clause 109 as now drafted will be those whose rateable values are £1,500 in Greater London and £750 elsewhere on April 1, 1973, and whose leases date back to pre-1966. This removes, therefore, any kind of retrospection. That, I think, is one of the reasons for the doubts of so many people about this Amendment.
The second reason why I am very glad to welcome the Amendment—and nobody so far has mentioned it—is that a new subsection (1)(a) at the bottom of page 40 contains a clause which affects management schemes, and it therefore enables an estate to have a management scheme provided they set it up within two years, which is entirely comparable with the proposals in the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967. I very much welcome this, and I am most grateful to the Government for drafting an appropriate clause. I quite accept that the clause I moved at the Committee stage was not correctly drafted.
As I said at the beginning, the difficulty is to steer a middle path between the two groups of people who are seriously affected. I said earlier that undoubtedly there was evidence that many people would be affected if the rateable values were not kept where they are in the present draft of Clause 109. These rateable values are brought into line with the fair rent legislation. I well recall that last year I myself moved the raising of the rateable value limits for fair rent legislation. One of the reasons for doing so was that it brought into

1749
security of tenure a group of people who had formerly been excluded—I suppose, if we use such terms, very largely middle class people who stood to benefit from this extra security.
It seemed only right to my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher, and my honourable friend Mr. Rossi, that the leasehold enfranchisement clauses should be brought into line with the fair rents legislation. I accept that there could still be anomalies. This is a fact of all housing legislation, that the more one interferes with the housing market the more anomalies one creates and one works further to take them out again.
The reason why I have down another Amendment, Amendment No. 50, is because it has been put to me that with these more valuable houses there could be this element of speculation. It is designed to amend the compensation provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act for these more valuable houses, and to bring the compensation that would be given more in line with market values. I am bound to say I was rather surprised at the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, on this because it seems to me that if we are going to talk about expropriation or anything else, a very good case could be made out under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 where, as T understand the basis of compensation, in a layman's language it is effectively that you buy the land and not the bricks and mortar. That enables you to enfranchise yourself. Whatever we may think of it, that is what the law says. It is going to be applied automatically to everyone whose rateable values are £1,000 in London or £500 elsewhere. If we talk about expropriation, we could apply it just as much there as indeed anywhere else. This situation has been in existence since 1969. I am bound to say I was somewhat surprised at that.
I hope that the House feel that the newly drafted Clause 109 is one that the House should support. In this very difficult field it does, I hope, with the following Amendment that I intend to move, give fairness to both sides. It brings it in line with the Rent Act legislation which, after all, is in many ways a comparable piece of legislation, in that this is all concerned with the security of someone's home.
1750
As I say, a great many letters have been written to me on this subject. I am quite certain that enormous numbers of people are watching very anxiously to see how this debate will go, and I hope very much that the House will support Amendment No. 47.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she could clarify one point in her argument. I am not at all unsympathetic concerning any hardship of leaseholders. Where is the hardship of a leaseholder? When a leaseholder owns a lease it has a value and he would buy it for a premium plus a small ground rent. That premium is basically a capitalised fair rent. At the end of the lease, he does not lose his house. All that happens is that he either has to take out another lease for a premium or he can revert to the fair rents system. So where is the hardship? Is he really being turned out of his house?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it may well be that "hardship" is the wrong word to use in this particular case. But, of course, what a leaseholder wants is the knowledge that the house in which he has been living for a considerable period of time will be his as an owner and not as a tenant, even if he has security of tenure. It may be that "hardship" is the wrong word to use, but that is the position the leaseholder wishes to have.
6.9 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, when a very long time ago I moved in very few words Amendment No. 47 I felt it would be the wish of the House that there should be a wide-ranging debate over these two Amendments, one of which must automatically rule out the other. If Amendment No. 47 is made, then of course Amendment No. 48 would not be possible, and the other way round.
As I said, Amendment No. 47 is technical. It corrects drafting errors in Clause 109 as it left another place. The original clause in the Bill merely amended the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by providing a rateable value limit on the 1973 rateable value lists for new houses entering the lists after 1973 comparable with the rateable value limit in the old list. The Opposition Amendment which was carried against the Government in another

1751
place raised the rateable value limits for enfranchisement under the Act for tenancies granted before March 23, 1965, by amending Section 1A of the 1970 Act to bring tenancies with rateable values of £750 outside and £1,500 within Greater London granted before 1965, and those with rateable values of £500 and £1,000 granted after March 23, 1965, into the scope of the Act. These are rateable values on the 1973 rateable value list. If the Government accept the principle behind that Amendment, it will be necessary to redraft the clause to ensure that it does what was intended. There is a problem about dividing the date March 23, 1965, in the higher and lower rateable value limits. The reason for this division is that tenancies granted after this date were granted with knowledge of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, and it would be unjust to raise the rateable value limits to bring into the scope of the Act tenancies granted by a landlord on the understanding that they were outside the Act. However, the date of March 23, 1965, bears no relation to the introduction or coming into force of the Act. A more appropriate date is January 18, 1966, when the White Paper Leasehold Reform in England and Wales, which preceded the Act, was published. This is the date used in this Amendment.
The other fault of the clause, as it now stands, is that it may disenfranchise some tenants. It is possible that some premises with 1969 rateable values of less than £700 or £1,000, the rateable value limits in the 1967 Act, may have new rateable values in the 1973 leases of more than £750 or £1,500. There may be tenancies granted after March 23, 1965, of £500 or £1,000. Such tenancies will be taken outside the scope of the 1967 Act. This is rectified in this Amendment by keeping the original Section 1(1)(a) of the 1967 Act, and adding two sections, Section 1(5) and Section 1(6). Subsection (5) provides that where the appropriate day falls on or after April 1, 1973, for tenancies granted before February 18, 1966, the rateable value limits are £750 and £1,500. For tenancies granted after February 18, 1966, the rateable value limits are £500 and £1,000. Subsection (6) provides that where the appropriate days fall before April 1, 1973, for tenancies granted before April 18, 1966, the rateable value limits
1752
are £750 and £1,500 on the 1973 rateable value lists.
My Lords, I now come to words in my brief which I feel right in my heart. This is a complicated Amendment. The legislation with which I was involved before we started on this Housing Bill was the reform of land tenure in Scotland. One of the things which was done in that Bill was to make certain that long leases of residential property were not going to rear their ugly heads in Scotland. Up to the present, we have been free of them, and we wanted to make certain they were not going to come in. If nothing else has emerged, as far as I am concerned, in the long time since I moved Amendment No. 47, I am convinced completely how absolutely right we are not to have this system imported into Scotland. Otherwise, I feel, as a Scot, moving this—places have been mentioned which have so much effect in London, such as Dulwich and Hampstead, which, after all, are only names on a map to me—like an innocent bystander who has been roped into a quarrel which has absolutely nothing to do with me. I am even more so, because the alternative Amendment to the one I have moved, No. 48, is to restore the Bill to the form in which the Government originally had it.
So it is obviously impossible for me to say that we should not like to see the Bill in the form in which we brought it into another place. Obviously, in the opinion of the Government that is the best form of the Bill. But I come up against the difficulty that in another place they decided to change it. I have had from all sides of the House views expressed wishing the Government to adhere to the decision of another place, and to make that decision work in the way which another place intended.
My Lords Amendment No. 47 does precisely that. If, therefore, the Government decide that the right thing to do is to accept the will of another place on this matter, then Amendment No. 47 should go into the Bill. If the Government want to go back to the original position, then we have to say we are to take the opportunity in this place to throw aside the decision arrived at in another place after very careful consideration. I must admit that at the outset of this debate I was minded to hope that

1753
the House would accept Amendment No. 48 instead of Amendment No. 47. As an upholder of the constitutional practice that in disagreements the decision of the other place is better than a decision of this place—there are sometimes exceptional circumstances—I think it would be wrong for me to encourage your Lordships not to accept the Government Amendment No. 47.
Having said all that, I think your Lordships will probably agree with my feeling that I am an innocent bystander dragged in has a certain merit of truth
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
attaching to it. Therefore, with regrets to my noble friend Lord Maybray-King and to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who have found themselves allies in the position in which the Government once found themselves, I must invite your Lordships to put Amendment No. 47 in the Bill.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Pannell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Pike, B.

Auckland, L.

Essex, E.

Platt, L.

Balerno, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller]

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gainford, L.

Rhyl, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rothermere, V.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly

Birk, B.

Glasgow, E.

Sandford, L.

Boothby, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Gowrie, E.

Segal, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hall, V.

Slater, L.

Castle, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Snow, L.

Catheart, E.

Henderson, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Chelwood, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hughes, L.

Colwyn, L.

Jacques, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Janner, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cowley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Tranmire, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Darling, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wigg, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V,

Windlesham, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Newall, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Dundee, E.

Northchurch, B.

Eccles, V.

Oakshott, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Effingham, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Caccia, L.

Killearn, L.

Monson, L.

Clinton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller]

Robbins, L.

Gage, V.

Maybray-King, L. [Teller]

Stradbroke, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Middleton, L.

6.37 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 94, line 30, at end insert—
"(1A) 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 be 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: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49. This is couched in similar terms to the Amendment I moved in Committee. We have already had a very long debate on the subject of leaseholds and I do not wish to take up any unnecessary time, because I know there is other business to follow. I should like to make three general points about it. I withdrew the Amendment at Committee stage because I wanted to have an opportunity to study what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had said about it. Having had this opportunity, I should like to say this. One of the noble Lord's reasons for not accepting the Amendment then, as I understood it, was that it had come to him suddenly and he had not had the opportunity to look at it himself. In fact, it was an Amendment similar to one put down by my honourable friend Mr. Rossi in another place some four weeks previously, but I would accept that with the printing difficulties one finds it difficult to keep up with everything. His second reason was that its drafting was defective, but so far as the new Schedule is concerned this is a complete lift of the Fifth Schedule from the 1957 Rent Act.
The basic purpose of this Amendment is to allow those tenants, who have improved their houses—perhaps by adding a garage or another bathroom or something like that—and whose rateable value therefore rises, to have that increase in their rateable value not counted against the rateable value for leasehold reform. This seems to me entirely in spirit with the Amendment we have just carried, and I should have thought that it was something the Government could accept. It seems to me very harsh that when a tenant improves his house and raises his rateable value just over the limit he can-
1756
not enfranchise himself. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to exclude this rateable value that comes from the improvement, and to bring him within the terms of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, supported the Government's Amendment and she regards this as an addition to what we have, in fact, done already. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with her. This new clause, and the Schedule which goes with it, are designed to enable certain tenants who are outside the scope of the Act to bring themselves within its scope by having their rateable values adjusted downwards. This adjustment would be, carried out following a declaration by the tenant that he has carried out improvements. The procedure would also involve the valuation officer and the county court, in certain cases, and the machinery under which it is to be done is taken from a repealed Schedule to the Rent Act 1958. It is apparently the intention that this right to have rateable values adjusted should apply only to those houses which might have been brought within the Act by the Amendment carried out at Committee stage in another place.
Because the clause amending the Leasehold Reform Act which the Government introduced into this Bill, as the Opposition when they were in Office introduced it into the preceding Bill, came at the end of the Bill, and because it stands as an isolated provision, it has not been possible to give the whole question of leasehold enfranchisement the full discussion I am sure both sides of this House would have wished. What was intended as a modest measure to retain the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has been turned, as a result of a change of Conservative policy on the subject of leasehold enfranchisement, into a wide extension of the scope of the Act. Because the records of our proceedings are not available in the normal way, the changed Bill has not been available to many of those who would be interested in expressing a view, and who would normally expect to be consulted on matters of such importance. I am talking of people outside.
My Lords, what we are now being asked to do is to adopt at this late

1757
stage in the progress of the Bill, a complicated procedure which is quite absent from the Leasehold Reform Act itself, was not advocated in all the exhaustive debates both before and during the passage of that Act in Parliament, and has never been suggested to the Department or to Ministers until Amendments similar to these were put down at Report stage in another place, as the noble Baroness told us. I understand that the Department has some knowledge of the cases which may very well lie behind these Amendments. In one case—I do not think that it is right to mention individual names—for instance, about which the noble Baroness may well know, I believe that it is doubtful whether the Amendments which she has put down, even if they were technically effective, would be of benefit, because that individual would still be outside the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act for other reasons.
There may be other cases in which leaseholders with long leases would be able to bring themselves within the Act if these Amendments were accepted. There have no doubt been similar cases in which leaseholders whose leases have already expired would have been able to bring themselves within the scope of the Act if it had been possible for them to adjust their rateable values in this way. There must also be cases in which tenants of houses on ordinary tenancies have removed themselves from the protection of the Rent Act 1968 by improving their houses. They, too, would no doubt have liked to take advantage of such a procedure as this, and if it is available for long leaseholders it should, in equity, be available for them. But there is no such procedure for them, and it has not been suggested that there should be. What we have already done in the Bill, is greatly to extend the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that it would be unwise to extend it still further in this partial, and indeed complicated way without much more careful consideration than has been possible in the timetable of the Bill.
As a final point, I should say that on technical grounds this clause and Schedule, drafted as they are on the basis of an original clause which has itself to be amended, are certainly defective.
1758
Indeed, I understand that they may be defective in an absolutely basic way, in that they could be involved only by a tenant who was already within the scope of Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act, and would, therefore, be of no use at all to any of the people they are designed to help.
For these reasons, and not for any Party political point, or question of Government prestige, or anything of the kind, I invite the noble Baroness to feel that she and her colleagues in another place have accomplished a fair amount of what they wanted, and that they ought not to put it in peril by putting in this exceedingly difficult and complicated Amendment, the consequences of which it is impossible to forecast. She has put it in to accomplish certain things for certain people, but the advice which I have received, in the time that has been available to study this complicated problem, is that it is more likely to have a reverse effect. Therefore, I ask her not to press this Amendment. If it were put in with all its defects, went to another place and then had to come back here with corrections, the Bill itself would be in very grave peril for something which is, at most, of doubtful value.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. I feel that the complications are not as heavy as he has in mind. What worries me about this matter is that some people who have made improvements can be put at a disadvantage compared to those who have not. For example, you could have people living in the same street, one of whom has neglected the premises he is living in and would come within the rateable value, whereas the person who had made improvements and spent a considerable amount of money—some considerable, perhaps some not so considerable—might come outside the scope of the Act.
I wonder whether my noble friend might think about the matter once more. I appreciate that a considerable amount has been obtained already, and I do not think the noble Baroness would deny that. We would not want to destroy what we have received by something which might cause delay later on. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the position.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I really cannot reconsider this. After all, we finish the Bill to-day. I have said that the advice we have is that this could, in fact, have the opposite effect to what is intended in some cases, and it will not cover some of the people who think that Amendments of this kind will work in their favour. Obviously what my noble friend has said about the unfairness for the person who has improved his property and taken himself out has some merit, but if we are to deal with that we must be quite certain that we are dealing with it in a way which will accomplish the purpose. We are in danger of attempting to effect more and more radical Amendments to the Leasehold Reform Act in this Housing Bill. My noble friend Lord Hale spoke about all the complications which led up to the passing of that Act in 1967, and all the difficulties that had to be overcome before it got on to the Statute Book. Obviously the way to accomplish difficult amendments to that Act is not by Amendments to a Housing Bill, particularly when the advice of my advisers is that it would be such a dangerous way to attempt it.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I are in basic agreement as to what I am trying to achieve. It seems to me a most reasonable objective that the tenant who improves his house, and gets himself out of the rateable value limits, should be able to discount this. He has said that the Amendment is defective and that some people may not be helped. That may be true of any Amendment. What I should like from the noble Lord is a few examples of how it would make matters worse for some people. I can see that some people would be left out. What I cannot see is how someone who has improved his house can fail to be covered. Will the noble Lord give an example of what he means?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not certain that that is the position. The brief from which I read did not suggest that. What it said was that we are now doing quite different things in relation to those on leasehold and those who are tenants. By an Amendment in the Hous-
1760
ing Bill of the Leasehold Act, we are giving certain things. If we are to do this, it ought to be part of deliberate Government policy to seek to provide equity between one lot and another. The method of doing that is to amend the appropriate legislation, not to attempt other legislation under this Bill. If the circumstances had been different in regard to printing and so on, we might have been in a position to see a little earlier what were the remedies.
I am now trying to find out whether what has been put into my hands is appropriate in my remarks at this stage. I will read it and if it is in the wrong place we can disregard it:
"The fact that the Schedule is lifted from another Act does not mean that it is suitable in this Bill. Indeed, so defective is the present Schedule that the pages arc in the wrong order. There is absolutely no possibility before Commons' consideration of Lords' Amendments of putting this into anything like workable order.''
This is the point where I should say, "Not to be read to your Lordships". I am anticipating the next Amendment, No. 50. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is getting advance notice that we do not like it also.
Obviously, if the noble Baroness decides that she has to press the Amendment, having regard to the numbers in the House, she will carry it into the Bill. What she will do is make us send along to the other place, at this stage of the proceedings, an Amendment so defective that it will have to be corrected there, with all the timetable problems that are involved. She is therefore taking the risk that we may lose the Bill, or sit on it for even longer than we are contemplating at present. It is for her to decide what she is to do. My advice to the House is that it is much too dangerous to put the Amendment in the Bill.
6.55 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, by leave of the House again, I should have been much more sympathetic to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, if I felt that the Government had considered this point. It is not as if I am raising it for the first time, at the last gasp. It is an Amendment which is in almost precisely the same terms as the one moved by my honourable friend Mr. Rossi on Report in another place. So the Government had an opportunity to consider it

1761
then, but they did not. I raised it again on Committee and said I thought it a reasonable Amendment that affected many people. The Government had an opportunity to consider it then and did not. I now raise it again on Report. It is not as if I had not said that I regarded this as important. Under those circumstances, I shall press it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is not correct that the Government did not consider the Amendment. The Government considered the matter fully on each occasion. Each time they came to the conclusion that it is impossible to do in the Bill what the noble Baroness requires. It is much too complicated. It is not because we did not consider the matter, but because we found it impossible to do what she wants. But if she wants to include
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
something which is unworkable, and even so defective as I indicated, it is up to her. She has the power to do it. That I must admit.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is it not correct to state, which I believe my noble friend has endeavoured to do, that if the noble Baroness wants what she has been indicating to the House, it is for her Party to table an Amendment to the original Act on leasehold reform and to have it absorbed within its confines and its operations? That can be done, and it has been done in other Bills and Acts.
6.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mersey, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Effingham, E.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Berkeley, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Essex, E.

Rothermere, V.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Ferrier, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gainford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Glasgow, E.

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller]

Cathcart, E.

Gowrie, E.

Selsdon, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Colwyn, L.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B. [Teller]

Hale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rhodes, L.

Castle, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shannon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Snow, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wade, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Maelor, L.

Wigg, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L.

Monson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Platt, L.

7.4 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 94, line 30, at end insert—
(" (1B) In section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (purchase price of enfranchisement) there shall be inserted after subsection (1):
"(1A) Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection, the price payable for a house and premises, the rateable value of which is above £1,000 in Greater London and £500 elsewhere, on a conveyance under section 8 above, shall be the amount which at the relevant time the house and premises, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise on the following assumptions:

(a) on the assumption that the vendor was selling for an estate in fee sample, subject to the tenancy, but on the assumption that this Part of this Act conferred no right to acquire the freehold;

(b) on the assumption that at the end of the tenancy the tenant has the right to remain in possession of the house and premises under the provisions of Part I of the Landlord Tenant Act 1954;

(c) on the assumption that the tenant has no liability to carry out any repairs, maintenance or redecorations under the terms of the tenancy or Part I of the ' Landlord and Tenant Act 1954;

(d) on the assumption that the price be diminished by the extent to which the value of the house and premises has been increased by any improvement carried out by the tenant or his predecessors in title at their own expense;

(e) on the assumption that (subject to paragraph (a) above) the vendor was sell ing subject, in respect of rent-charges and other rents to which section 11(2) below applies, to the same annual charge as conveyance to the tenant is to be subject to, but the purchaser would otherwise be effectively exonerated until the termination of the tenancy from any liability or charge in respect of tenant's incumbrances; and

(f) on the assumption that (subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) above) the vendor was selling with and subject to the rights and burdens with and subject to which the conveyance to the tenant is to be made. and in particular with and subject to such permanent or extended rights and burdens as are to be created in order to give effect to section 10 below.

(1B) For the purpose of determining whether the rateable value of the house and premises is above £1,000 in Greater London, or £500 elsewhere, the rateable value shall be adjusted to take into account any tenant's improvements in accordance with Schedule (Reduction of rateable value in case of certain improvements) to the Housing Act 1974."")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50. I
1764
shall not take long moving it, because we have already discussed this matter very fully. As we agreed when we were debating Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, the difficulty with raising the rateable value limits for leasehold enfranchisement is that it has brought in some of the more valuable properties. As a consequence, a number of estate owners are greatly affected, and a number of charitable organisations, including of course the Church Commissioners and the Dulwich Estate, which was mentioned, and a number of the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. I have therefore tabled this Amendment to alter the basis of compensation for those houses in the rateable value bands, in Greater London between £1,000 and £1,500 and those outside between £500 and £750. to bring it more into line with market value.
The Amendment is taken very largely from Section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act. It begins with an explanatory introduction, which is subsection (1A), and then paragraph (a) is an alteration of paragraph (a) in Section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act. As I understand the technicalities of the formula for enfranchisement under that Act, the basis of compensation at the end of a lease is to make an assumption that the lease continues for a number of years, I think 50 years, and then this decreases the value of the terminating lease, if only six or seven years are left. Paragraph (a) of my Amendment takes out this assumption, and therefore brings the value of enfranchisement nearer to the market value, rather than this particular formula under the Leasehold Reform Act. It also takes into account the fact that there is a sitting tenant in the house, which must alter its value; and it takes into account the increase in the value brought about by the tenant's improvement. It assumes, under paragraph (c), that we will, as it were, wipe the slate clean so far as tenant's improvements are concerned, and that none of these repairs are taken into account.
It also includes the two technical matters in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which follows as paragraph (e)—there is, incidentally, a misprint on page 43; there appear to be two paragraphs (c) but one should be (e)—and paragraph (f). As I understand it, they are highly technical matters which apply in certain parts of

1765
the country only, and those remain. The purpose behind it is to try to do justice, particularly to those charitable organisations which would otherwise be affected. It allows the leaseholder to enfranchise himself, but allows the freeholder to have nearer the market value when he does. I beg to move.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said. I am sorry to say that I do not find her argument a sustainable one. We are dealing with leasehold reform. A certain formula has been arranged and agreed to in the Statutes in respect of the calculation of the value of a freehold. An Amendment of this nature would in fact be altering the basis of what has all along been—indeed, it was tightened in the Housing Bill some time ago—the scale on which a tenant has been called upon to pay for the enfranchisement of the leasehold.
I do not think that at this stage we ought or are entitled to change that, because if we do it means that at a later stage we shall have this being regarded as a precedent for other alterations of a similar nature in respect of the leasehold enfranchisement itself. There is no reason why this should be done. A leaseholder's rights were assessed in a certain manner before. Up till now that has been accepted except, of course, in those cases where different tribunals have made different assessments on the basis of the Act itself. That is legitimate of course, but to alter the basis itself at this stage would in my view be quite wrong and I hope that the House will not agree to this Amendment and that the Leasehold Reform Act, as it relates to the calculation of the amount to be paid, will remain as it is at present.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords as a Scot, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the splendid tightrope he has been walking on behalf of the English Leasehold Reform Act. Unless my memory fails me, during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the clause which the Government had drafted in the original Bill before it went to the Commons Committee was based on their feeling that the possible profits of the leaseholders would be undesirable and unjustifiable. I hope that when the noble Lord
1766
comes to reply to my noble friend's Amendment he will be able to give an undertaking that the compensation rules under the Act will be reconsidered in view of the increase in the rateable value limits.
7.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness is to increase the compensation paid by tenants for their freeholds under the Leasehold Act 1967. It is no doubt designed as a way of counteracting some of the results of extending the scope of the Act and it applies only to the, more valuable, tenancies brought within that Act by this Bill, as amended in another place. I am advised that the effect of the Amendment might be highly doubtful. It only become available for study in the Department in the middle of yesterday afternoon and I am advised that, from the examination which it has been possible to give it since then, it has not been possible to form a clear view of what it might do to compensation under the Act. I understand that it may well be that the effect of the Amendment as drafted would be just the opposite of what the noble Baroness intends and would actually be to reduce still further the prices paid for the freeholds of these large houses. The assumptions (b) and (c) which the noble Baroness's Amendment would insert among those upon which the price to be paid will be based might well have that result, or so I am advised.
The Government feel that if the Leasehold Reform Act is to be extended it should be extended properly, and that we should not take away with one hand benefits which we offer with the other. We considered, when we looked at the whole question, that the Act should be amended only so far as to maintain its scope and, after the discussion in Committee in another place and in the light of the discussion to-day, we decided that we should bow to the wishes of that Committee and extend it. That has been done. We believe that there can be no half measures. If the Amendment of the noble Baroness did ensure that the market value was paid for the more expensive freeholds brought within the scope of the Act, that extension would have been of no real benefit to tenants, since there could be no way for them to improve upon the situation in which they had bought their original leases.

1767
As it is, I am afraid that the simple answer is that I can give the noble Baroness no assurance whatsoever as to what her Amendment would do, nor of course would it now be possible to introduce an Amendment which would have the result which she is seeking. Further, for technical reasons this Amendment might increase—if indeed it does increase compensation—compensation paid by already qualified leaseholders, the reason being that some people inside the old limits will have rateable values above the figures of £1,000 and £500. I am quite certain that that is not what the noble Baroness intends because it would so clearly be grossly unfair to these people.
My Lords, this is just part of the picture which I painted on the last Amendment. Attempting to make these complicated provisions as last-minute alterations to another Act means that we are treading on very dangerous ground indeed. However, the noble Baroness did not take my advice on the last Amendment and I have no great confidence that she will do any differently on this occasion. All I would say is that on this occasion the defects of Amendment No. 50 are even greater than those of Amendment No. 49. Finally, I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Earl the answer for which he asked but, if he will allow me, I will write to him and, if possible, give him the assurance which he seeks.
EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance, and all I would ask the noble Lord is, if he says in Committee that the Government disapprove of the sort of profits leaseholders will get, how can he come to this stage of the Bill and give no undertaking at all about altering the form of compensation
which my noble friend has put down?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a housing Bill. It is not a Bill to amend leasehold enfranchisement.
BARONESS YOUNG: By leave of the House, my Lords, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I am very sorry that I was unable to get the Amendment to him earlier but, of course, I am not responsible for the timetable of the Bill and, as he knows as well as I do, we have been working to a very tight timetable indeed and this is an exceedingly complicated subject. What I am seeking to do is to be fair with regard to compensation as between those who wish to enfranchise themselves and the freeholders. It is quite wrong to say that there would be no benefit to tenants under this: there would clearly be the benefit to tenants that they could enfranchise themselves. While they might not be able to do it at the price under the 1967 Act, the fact is that they will be able to do it; and it does seem to me that it is much fairer to those in the higher rateable value limits that they should get something more by way of compensation than the 1967 Act allows. I appreciate that the Amendment is probably not technically correct; Amendments which are not drafted by Government draftsmen seldom are. Nevertheless, it is one about which I feel strongly and is one which I feel in honour bound to press, because I feel that in this case it acts in fairness to both the leaseholder and the freeholder.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colwyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Abinger, L.

Cowley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Balerno, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Dundee, E.

Monson, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Effingham, E.

Northchurch, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elles, B.

Oakshott, L.

Caccia, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ferrier, L.

Rothermere, V.

Chelwood, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Clinton, L.

Hartwell, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. Tetter]

Selsdon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sharpies, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B,

Strathcarron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B. [Teller]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Boothby, L.

Hall, V.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Segal, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Castle, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davis of Penrhys, L.

Janner, L.

Wade, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L.Chancellor.)

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wigg, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Longford, E.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

Melchett, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 110 [Option mortgages]:
7.25 p.m.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 94, line 33, at the beginning insert—
"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I will move Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, and associate with them Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 in Schedule 8. These Amendments to Clause 110 and Schedule 8 follow upon amendments to Schedule 8 to restrict the availability of tax relief on interest contained in the Finance Bill which was considered in Lords' Committee. The restrictions mean basically that option mortgage subsidy will not in future be available for very large loans or new loans, or for what may generally be described as second loans. I must apologise for the fact that Amendment No. 52 is a starred Amendment which the House has not had long to consider. This was tabled in place of another Amendment which was identical in substance, but in which there was a small technical defect. In fact, all that the new Amendment does is to add in two places the words:
"or in paragraphs (ix) to (xi) of section 24(3) of the said Act of 1967".
My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, this group of Amendments follows a pattern, and in view of the explanation which the noble
1770
Lord, Lord Hughes, has given about Amendment No. 52 we do not wish to raise any comments on them. In view of the need to proceed as fast as possible with later Amendments, I do not want to make further observations.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52:
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) Until 6th April 1980, nothing in paragraphs 1(2) and 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act or in paragraphs (ix) to (xi) of section 24(3) of the said Act of 1967 shall have effect in relation to a loan if—

(a) the option notice in respect of the loan was signed on or before 26th June 1974, or

(b) the loan was made in pursuance of an offer in writing made by the lender to the borrower on or before 26th June 1974 and the option notice was signed as mentioned in section 24(3)(b) of the said Act of 1967.

(3) Until the expiry of the period of 3 months beginning on the appointed day, nothing in paragraphs 1(2) and 2 of Schedule 8 to this Act or in paragraphs (ix) to (xi) of section 24(3) of the said Act of 1967 shall have effect in relation to a loan (being a loan to which subsection (2) above does not apply) if the option notice in respect of the loan was signed after 26th June 1974 and before the day appointed for the coming into operation of this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such transitional provisions as he considers appropriate for the purpose of securing the proper application of Part II of the said Act of 1967—

(a) on and after 6th April 1980 in relation to a loan to which subsection (2) above applies; and

1771

(b) after the expiry of the period specified in subsection (3) above in relation to a loan to which that subsection applies.

(5)Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (4) above, in relation to a loan to which the power applies, regulations under that subsection—

(a) may require things to be done before the date on which the said Part II is to apply to the loan; and

(b) may make such modifications of the said Part II as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regula tions under subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 113 insert the following new clause:
"Duty to inform tenant of a dwelling on assignment of landlord's interest
(1) If the interest of the landlord under a tenancy of premises which consist of or include a dwelling is assigned, the person to whom that interest is assigned (in this section referred to as "the new landlord") shall, within the appropriate period, give notice in writing to the tenant of the assignment and of the name and address of the new landlord.
(2) In subsection (1) above "the appropriate period" means the period beginning on the date of the assignment in question and ending either two months after that date or, if it is later, on the first day after that date on which rent is payable under the tenancy.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the reference in subsection (1) above to the new landlord's address is a reference to his place of abode or his place of business or. if the new landlord is a company, its registered office.
(4) If trustees as such constitute the new landlord, it shall be a sufficient compliance with the obligation in subsection (1) above to give the name of the new landlord, to give a collective description of the trustees as the trustees of the trust in question, and where such a collective description is given—

(a) the address of the new landlord for the purpose of that subsection may be given as the address from which the affairs of the trust are conducted; and

(b) a change in the persons who are for the time being the trustees of the trust shall not be treated as an assignment of the interest of the landlord.

(5) If any person who is the new landlord under a tenancy falling within subsection (4) above fails, without reasonable excuse, to give the notice required by that subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(6) Where an offence under subsection (5) above which has been committed by a body
1772
corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(7) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (6) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(8) In this section "tenancy" includes a sub-tenancy and a statutory tenancy, within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968 or of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, but does not include a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (business tenancies) applies, and "tenant" shall be construed accordingly.
(9) In this section—

(a) in relation to England and Wales "assignment" includes any conveyance other than a mortgage or charge; and

(b) in relation to Scotland "assignment" means a conveyance or other transfer (other than in security), and any reference to the date of the assignment means the date on which the conveyance or other transfer was granted, delivered or otherwise made effective.

(10) This section shall come into operation I at the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, where there is a change of ownership this new clause imposes on a new landlord of residential property an obligation to inform the tenant of the change of ownership and of the landlord's name and address. The clause meets a commitment made by the Government during the debate in Committee in another place, which is why we support it. It also takes up a recommendation made by the Law Commission in a working paper on this subject, that a tenant should have the right to be automatically informed, when there is a change of landlord, of the new landlord's name and address. I hope that that brief explanation will satisfy your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, in view of the fact that this Amendment received wide acclaim in another place, and in view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, we do not wish to make further comment upon it.
Clause 114 [Service charges]:
7.30 p.m.
LORD SANDYS LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 54:
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 10 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young and myself, I wish to move Amendment No. 54. We enter into Part IX of the Bill and we have before us a matter in relation to services charges which we have discussed in considerable depth. I should like to open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for one of the longest letters I have ever received on this interesting and complicated subject. I should like to thank him also for providing me with the information and following the line which he said in Committee he would follow. It is quite obvious when we examine the details which were discussed on Committee, that the Government take a radically different view from the Opposition in this matter of service charges.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made a number of observations. He said that this Amendment was unnecessary. He said that it was defective and, I quote his words, he "hit it for six" on that account. If he is as good a batsman as I feel sure he is in the field of draftsmanship, it may be unfortunate for the noble Lord to discover that this Amendment has re-emerged in another over in almost precisely the same form. I should like to make a single comment on a defective typographical error. In Amendment No. 54 you will see on the last line but one a reference to "Schedule 10 to this Act". In view of the fact that the Schedules have been re-numbered once again this should read "Schedule 9 to this Act". It is a simple but nevertheless highly important fact and I hope the noble Lord will accept that amendment to the Amendment as set down.
LORD HUGHES: In the copy I have it says "Schedule 1".
LORD SANDYS: Are we speaking about the final line but one of Amendment No. 54?
LORD HUGHES: The Amendment No. 54 I have is "page 96, line 9, at end insert … ". Is that the one?
LORD SANDYS: Quite correct.
LORD HUGHES: In my copy the reference to the Schedule is in the last line. It reads:
"… wholly unconnected with them, in the manner described in Schedule 1 to this Act."
LORD SANDYS: Would the noble Lord accept that it is possible that a typographical error has occurred?
LORD HUGHES: It is Schedule 9 that you want?
LORD SANDYS: It should be "Schedule 9 to this Act". My Lords, to continue with the defects which the noble Lord pointed out on Committee, he said:
"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 works as being likely to exceed £250. It prescribes a rigid sum as applicable to ail blocks of flats, 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."—[Official Report, 15/7/74.]
I have examined with the closest detail the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, upon this matter and I cannot find it possible to depart from my remarks on Committee that we must have a starting gate and £250 seems to be a very reasonable starting gate.
This figure in present-day terms would appear to be the kind of figure which is the basic minimum which one might reasonably expect to exist—even in a period of inflation—for a short period between now and the appearance of yet another Housing Bill before Parliament. Therefore, I regret that I cannot alter the draftsmanship of the £250. In regard to the question of the machinery for ensuring that statutory duty is carried out, I find that the Amendment as drafted—and here I rely on the advice of my advisers—is entirely satisfactory and I fail to understand why the Amendment as drafted is wholly unsatisfactory to the noble Lord. So far as the other

1775
Amendments which follow are concerned, I feel sure that the noble Lord will wish me to deal with those one by one and, therefore, I shall move them separately.
7.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with the House as densely occupied as this, it would be a waste of time if I were to repeat the arguments which I put forward at Committee stage. As the noble Lord has said, I wrote him a very long letter explaining even more fully than I did at Committee stage the reason why the Government considered this whole group of Amendments to be wrong—perhaps good in intention, but we know how pavements sometimes rise. All that the noble Lord has done is to return to the arguments he put forward at the last stage and to say that he does not accept what I said in return.
I see no useful purpose in repeating all that L said before, merely to prove that I am still of the same opinion, particularly
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
as it does not matter—nobody will read anything that is said here to-morrow or even the day after. Therefore, all I need to do is to point out that the Government are still firmly of the opinion that many people will have great cause to regret what the noble Lord is proposing and none more so than those whom he is seeking to help. His Amendments are singularly ill-advised. Their purpose in many cases will be totally different from that which ha seeks to accomplish. They will be of no help to tenants who have a good landlord, but they will be an absolute disaster for tenants who have a bad landlord and who want to seize on all the opportunities for delay which these Amendments will build into the procedure. I therefore must ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
7.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 54) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided. Contents, 42: Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Monson, L.

Balerno, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Effingham, E.

Northchurch, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Elles, B

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrier, L

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gowrie, E

Sandys, L. [Teller]

Chelwood, L.

Hartwell, L.

Sharples, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sudeley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wade, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

NOT CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Segal, L.

Birk, B. [Teller]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Hall, V.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Castle, L.

Henderson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hughes, L.

Wise, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jacques, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Longford, E.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Melchett, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

7.46 p.m.
LORD SANDYS LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 96, line 9, at end insert—
("and if any work in respect of which a service charge is claimed is estimated to cost more than £2,000, there shall be a duty upon the landlord or agent first to discuss it with the tenants' association or if no such body exists or is not wholly independent, then with individual tenants before it is proceeded with (except in cases of emergency) and only after such consultation shall estimates be obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section; and the consultation and expressed views of tenants or their association or both shall be produced to the Court in case of any dispute arising out of the operation of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon the last Amendment. I do not know whether at this hour the House would wish me to repeat the argument yet again which was set out in Committee. If your Lordships would like me to do so, I should be happy to move this Amendment without further discussion. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, all I need to say is that I still like it not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDYS LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 96, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Where in proceedings brought under the foregoing subsection (3) it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that an association has been formed to represent the tenants one or more of whom are parties to the application and that the membership of such Association comprises not less than 60 per cent. of the tenants eligible to belong thereto the Court may in making any order on the application further declare that the said association shall until further order of the Court be recognised for the purposes of this Act as the tenants' association entitled to exercise the rights conferred by this Act and the term "tenants' association" shall refer to such association so long as it is recognised.
( ) Regulations relating to the formation of such tenants' association may be made by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this third Amendment in the series on service charges is somewhat different. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, wrote at length on this subject in regard to eligibility of groups of tenants, and I must say once again that we disagree with his point of view. I am relying here on advice from a sound status and we feel it would be perfectly satisfactory to retain the Amend-
1778
ment as it stands. The noble Lord made a considerable point about the question of the proportions and the opportunity which lay in the law of exceeding 60 per cent. or a number less than that amount. The noble Lord sees lions in his path, to which I referred in Committee. Although these lions have threatening silhouettes in the distance, when one comes close to them one realises they are cardboard lions, and I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, despite his blandishments on this subject. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have heard frequent references in the past to cardboard tigers. Cardboard lions do not make this Amendment any more attractive.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 114 insert the following new clause:
"Specific performance of landlord's repairing covenants, etc.
.—(1) In any procedings in which a tenant of a dwelling alleges a breach on the part of his landlord of a repairing covenant relating to any part of the premises in which the dwelling is comprised, the court may, in its discretion, order specific performance of that covenant, whether or not the breach relates to a part of the premises let to the tenant and notwithstanding any equitable rule restricting the scope of that remedy, whether on the basis of a lack of mutuality or otherwise,
(2) In this section—

"landlord". in relation to a tenant, includes any person against whom the tenant has a right to enforce a repairing covenant;

"repairing covenant" means a covenant to repair, maintain, renew, construct or replace any property;

"statutory tenant" has the same meaning as in the Rent Act 1968; and

"tenant" includes a sub-tenant and a statutory tenant but does not include a tenant under a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (business tenancies) applies, and any reference to the premises let to a tenant means, in relation to a statutory tenant, the premises of which he is the statutory tenant.

(3) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57. The purpose of this clause is to underline the right

1779
of a court to grant to a tenant of a dwelling a decree of specific performance of a landlord's covenant to build, repair, or maintain the dwelling or the premises of which the dwelling forms part, whether or not the tenant has rights over these other parts of the premises.
The court's ability to grant specific performance was shown in the case of Jenne v. Queens Cross Properties, (1973) 3W.L.R. During discussions in the Commons Committee on new clauses put down by Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg and Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann it became clear that the Committee felt that this power should be enshrined in the Statutes. The effect of the clauses put down would have been to oblige the courts to grant tenants orders for specific performance. These clauses were resisted by the Government as being unnecessary in view of the judgment in the Jenne case, and unacceptable because they would have fettered the court's discretion. However, because of the mood of the Committee, the Minister agreed to consider introducing a clause. This new clause takes up that commitment.
The clause gives the courts a discretionary power to grant an order for specific performance, so that the courts are not fettered and their power to grant relief other than an order for specific performance is not prejudiced. The scope of the clause is limited to dwellings and the definition of "landlord" is widened to include any person whose duty it is to carry out the repairing covenant. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept that this is a reasonable implementation of the commitment given in another place. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation of this Amendment and to say how glad we are that the Government have been able to give effect to the wishes of those Members of another place who originally moved this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 102, line 40, after ("V") insert ("VI").
The noble Lord said, My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58 It is purely technical and it secures that Part VI of the Bill, that part of the Bill which contains the new clauses on priority neighbourhoods, will apply in England and Wales only. I ought to explain that the Scottish provisions for areas of housing stress are contained in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. There is no need to detain your Lordships at length upon this. I am sure that the Amendment will commend itself. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 102, line 41, after ("114") insert ("Specific performance of landlord's repairing covenants, etc.)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59. It is consequential to the new clause which has been inserted after Clause 114 and limits that clause again to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Application of Rent Act 1968 to certain housing association tenancies]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 64:
Page 110, line 15, at end insert:
("(lA) In the following provisions of this paragraph "the regulated tenancy" means the regulated tenancy consisting of the protected or statutory tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, together with any subsequent statutory tenancy which, when taken with that regulated tenancy, is by virtue of section 7(4) of the Rent Act 1968 treated for the purposes of that Act as constituting one regulated tenancy.")
Page 110, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert ("the regulated tenancy")
Page 110, line 31, after ("a") insert ("new").
Page 110, line 34, leave out from ("the") to end of line 35 and insert ("regulated tenancy")
Page 110A, line 12, at end insert ("regulated tenancy consisting of or beginning with a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60, and, with your Lordships' permission, I wish to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 was inserted at Committee stage in this House. It provides that in tenancies of housing associations which

1781
do not become registered, rent increases are to continue to be phased until the first free registration of a rent or until a new regulated tenancy is granted. It does not cover the situation where a tenancy comes to an end and the occupier stays on as a statutory tenant. These Government Amendments remedy that omission by providing that the phasing of rent increases continues to apply in the same way. I beg to move.
On Ouestion, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 65: Page 110A, line 20, at end
("8A.—(1) This paragraph shall have effect with respect to the application of Schedule 6 to the 1972 Act (restriction of rent increases) in relation to a regulated tenancy consisting of—

(a) a tenancy which becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of section 18(1) of this Act, or

(b) a statutory tenancy imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above,

together with any subsequent statutory tenancy which, when taken with that regulated tenancy, is by virtue of section 7(4) of the Rent Act 1968 treated for the purposes of that Act as constituting one regulated tenancy.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 1(1)(b) of the said Schedule 6 (application of paragraph 1 to the first registration of rent after completion, during the existence of the regulated tenancy, or certain works), a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) above shall be deemed to have been a regulated tenancy throughout the period when Part VIII of the 1972 Act applied to it.
(3) In the case of a regulated tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, paragraph 1(1)(b) of the said Schedule 6 shall have effect as if the reference to the completion of works during the existence of the regulated tenancy included a reference to their completion during the period beginning on the day on which Part VIII of the 1972 Act first applied to the tenancy referred to in paragraph 5(1) above and ending on the day on which the regulated tenancy came into existence.
(4) The references in paragraph 3(1) of the said Schedule 6 to notices of increase authorised by the Rent Act 1968 shall include a reference to notices of increase under section 87 of the 1972 Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65. Clause 18(1) in Schedule 3 to the Bill is directed towards putting the tenancies of housing associations which do not become registered on the same footing, so far as possible, as other private landlord's tenancies. This Amendment removes one small difference of treatment. It relates to the phasing of rent increases following grant-aided improvements to the dwelling
1782
to ensure that the tenant can gain a fair share of the benefits of the public funds extended in grant. Schedule 6 to the Housing Finance Act 1972 provides that rent increases for the regulated tenancy to which it applies shall be phased. That restriction upon rent increases is applied by this Amendment to the tenancies of housing associations which do not become registered upon the operative date. Without the Amendment, Schedule 3 to the Bill as drafted would have the effect that while the restrictions on increases in rent after improvements apply to most regulated tenancies of private landlords, they would not apply to a tenancy where grant-aided improvements were completed to a dwelling while it was subject to a housing association tenancy which was regulated under Part VIII of the 1972 Act. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that explanation. As I understand it, this is bringing housing associations into line with other tenancies that are privately owned. It seems to me to be only a reasonable and sensible Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to inform your Lordships that in Division No. 2 the numbers who voted Content were 65 not 66. This makes no difference to the results. The figures are—Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 43.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 111, line 28, leave out from ("made") to end of the line and insert ("or, where such an order has been made,—

(a) during any period while its operation is postponed or its execution is suspended; or

(b) after it has been rescinded").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 66. This Amendment corresponds exactly with Amendment No. 47 for England and Wales which was agreed in Committee. At that time it was inadvertently not moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Page 112, line 38, after ("shall") insert (", subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph,')
Page 113, line 22, at end insert—
("' (2A) In the application, by virtue of subparagraph (2)(c) of this paragraph, of subsection (2) of section 63 of the 1972 Act to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to a statutory tenancy which is deemed to arise under paragraph 11 above, that subsection shall be deemed to have continued to apply throughout the period between the termination of the tenancy referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a) above and the operative date; but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall affect the rent recoverable for that dwelling-house at any time during that period.
(2B) In the case where sub-paragraph (2)(c) of this paragraph applies, and the rent limit therein referred to is the rent limit as determined in accordance with section 63 of the 1972 Act, any notice of increase under section 21(2)(6) of the 1971 Act shall not increase the rent for any statutory period of a tenancy to which this paragraph applies above the rent limit as so determined, and any such notice which purports to increase it further shall have effect to increase it to that limit but no further.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will move Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 together. These Amendments insert certain provisos to sub-paragraph 12(ii)(c) on the lines of the new paragraph 72(4)(b)(5) which was inserted in Part II of the Schedule for England and Wales. They are concerned with the application of Section 63(2) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act which provides for the phasing of rent increases in the case of housing association tenancies where a rent is registered and is higher than the previous rent recoverable. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 69:
After Schedule 3 insert the following new Schedule:
(" Notification procedure
1. Where, by virtue of the principal section, a person is under obligation to notify a local authority of any matter, the obligation shall he fulfilled by furnishing to the local authority a notification in writing containing the information specified in the following provisions of this Schedule.
2.—(1) Every such notification shall contain—

(a) the name and address of the person by whom it is furnished;

(b) the address of, and any further information necessary to identify, the land to which the notification relates; and

(c) the estate or interest in that land which the person by whom the notification is furnished has at the time it is furnished.

(2) The reference to sub-paragraph (1)(a) 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.
(3) To the extent that it is capable of being so given, the information required by subparagraph (1)(b) above may be given by reference to a plan accompanying that notification.
3.—(1) A notification given in compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the principal section shall also specify—

(a) whether the tenancy concerned is periodic or for a term certain:

(b) the duration of the period or term; and

(c) the date on which the tenancy will come to an end (by virtue of the service of the notice to quit or by effluxion of time).

(2) If the landlord considers it appropriate,; he may also, in a notification given in compliance with subsection (1) of the principal section, give his reason for serving the notice to quit.
4. A notification given in compliance with subsection (3) of the principal section shall also specify whether, at the time the notification is furnished, the person furnishing it intends to retain any estate or interest in the land specified in the notification in accordance with paragraph 2(1)(6) above and, if he does, the nature of that estate or interest and the land in which he intends that it should subsist.
5. In this Schedule "the principal section'" means section (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when we dealt with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [General improvement areas]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 70: Page 119, line 1, at the beginning insert—
("In subsection (2) of section 40 of that Act (in relation to land in a general improvement area declared by them, the Greater London Council is to be deemed to be the local authority for certain purposes and cetain functions are to be exerciseable by other authorities only after consultation with the Greater London Council)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 70 when the House dealt with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 710.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 6 insert the following new Schedule ("Reduction of rateable value in case of certain improvements.
1.—(1) Where the tenant, or any previous tenant, has made or contributed to the cost of an improvement on the premises comprised in the tenancy and the improvement is one to which this Schedule applies, then, if the tenant serves on the landlord a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to agree to a reduction under this Schedule, their rateable value as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section one of this Act shall be reduced by such amount, if any, as may be agreed or determined in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule.
(2) This Schedule applies to any improvement made by the execution of works amounting to structural alteration, extension or addition.
2.—(1) The amount of any such reduction may at any time be agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant.
(2) Where, at the expiration of a period of six weeks from the service of a notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule any of the following matters has not been agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant, that is to say,—

(a) whether the improvement specified in the notice is an improvement to which this Schedule applies;

(b) what works were involved in it;

(c) whether the tenant or a previous tenant under the tenancy has made it or contributed to its cost; and

(d) what proportion his contribution, if any, bears to the whole cost;

the county court may on the application of the tenant determine that matter, and any such determination shall be final and conclusive.
(3) An application under the last foregoing sub-paragraph must be made within six weeks from the expiration of the period mentioned therein or such longer time as the court may allow.
3.—(1) Where, after the service of a notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule, it is agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant or determined by the county court—

(a) that the improvement specified in the notice is one to which this Schedule applies, and what works were involved in it. and

(b) that the tenant or a previous tenant under the tenanacy has made it or contributed to its cost, and, in the latter case, what proportion his contribution bears to the whole cost, then if, at the expiration of a period of two weeks from the agreement or determination, it has not been agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant whether any or what reduction is to be made under this Schedule, and the tenant, within four weeks from the expiration of that period, makes an application to the valuation officer for a certificate under the next following sub-paragraph, that question shall be determined in accordance with the certificate unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree in writing.

(2) On any such application the valuation officer shall certify—
1786

(a) whether or not the improvement has affected the rateable value on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and seventy-three as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section one of this Act), of the hereditament of which the premises consist or, as the case may be, in which they are wholly ar partly comprised.

(b) if it has, the amount by which the rateable value would have been less if the improvement had not been made.

FIRST SCHEDULE
Description of Improvement(s)

SECOND SCHEDULE
Description of Works
Strike out words in square brackets if inapplicable.
Note 1
The improvement must be one made by the execution of works amounting to the structural alteration or extension of the premises or a structural addition thereto, e.g. the erection of a garage in the grounds.
Note 2
If the amount of the reduction is agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant. the amount of the reduced rateable value as so agreed will be substituted for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. for the rateable value on 1st April, 1973.
Note 3
If the amount of the reduction is not agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenan. the Valuation Officer will have to decide whether the improvement has affected the rateable value of the premises, and if so, what that value would have been had the improvement not been made. The name and address of the Valuation Officer can be obtained from the local authority. Before, however, an application is made to the Valuation Officer, the landlord and the tenant must try to agree in writing on the items mentioned at (a) to (d) of this paragraph, or such of those items as are material. If at the end of a period of six weeks after the service of this notice any of these items have not been agreed, the tenant may. within a further six weeks or much longer time as the court may allow, apply to the county court to settle the matter.
If it has either been agreed or determined by the county court that there has been an improvement of the kind described in Note 1 involving specified works, and that the improvement was carried out by the tenant or a previous tenant, or that the tenant or a previous tenant contributed to its cost, and in the latter case what proportion the contribution bears to the whole cost of the works, then, if within a period of two weeks after the agreement or determination of the county court the landlord and the tenant have still not agreed in writing whether any or what reduction is to be made, the tenant has a further four weeks

1787
in which to make an application in the statutory form to the Valuation Officer for a certificate as to whether or not the improvement has affected the rateable value, and if so, the amount by which that value would have been less if the improvement had not been made.
(3) An application for such a certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall state the name and address of the landlord, and the valuation officer shall send a copy of the certificate to the landlord.
(4) Where the amount of the reduction under this Schedule falls to be determined in accordance with such a certificate, it shall be equal to the amount specified in pursuance of head (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, but proportionately reduced in any case where a proportion only of the cost was contributed by the tenant or a previous tenant under the tenancy.
(5) Where at the time of an application for a certificate under this paragraph a proposal for an alteration in the valuation list relating to the hereditament is pending and the altera-tion would have effect from a date earlier than the second day of April, nineteen hundred and seventy-three, the valuation officer shall not issue the certificate until the proposal is settled.
FORM …
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
Notice by Tenant to Landlord of Tenants' Improvements affecting Rateable Value
Date …
To, landlord of
1.—(1) (A previous tenant of the above-mentioned premises under the tenancy) (made) (contributed to the cost of) the improvement(s) to the above-mentioned premises particulars of which are set out in the First Schedule hereto (No. 1).
2. I hereby require you to agree to a reduction in the rateable value of the premises for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.
3. I propose that the rateable value shall be reduced to £ (Note 2).
4. If you do not agree to this reduction (Note 3), do you agree that—

(a) the improvcment(s) (is) (are) (an) improvement(s) made by the execution of works amounting to the structural alteration or extension of the premises or a structural addition thereto;

(b) the works set out in the Second Schedule hereto were involved in the making of the improvement(s);

(c) (I) (A previous tenant under the tenancy) (made the improvement(s)) (contributed to the cost of the improvement(s);)

(d) the proportion of the cost borne by a previous tenant is).

Signature of …
FORM …
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
Application by Tenant to Valuation Officer for Certificate as to Recution for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in the Rateable Value of premises on account of Tenants' Improvements.
Date.
To the Valuation Officer.

1. I am the tenant of, and my landlord is of

2. It has been (agreed in writing between me and my landlord) (determined by the county court) that the improvements) specified in the First Schedule hereto (is an improvement) (are improvements) to which Schedule Seven to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, applies, and that I or a previous tenant under the tenancy made the improvement(s) or contributed to (its) (their) cost, and that the works specified in the Second Schedule hereto were involved in the improvement(s).

3. It has not been agreed between me and my landlord whether any or what reduction is to be made under said Schedule Seven in the rateable value of the premises for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. and I hereby make application to you for a certificate under paragraph 3(2) of the said Schedule Seven (Note 4).

Signature of Tenant

FIRST SCHEDULE
Description of Improvement(s)

SECOND SCHEDULE
Description of Works
Strike out words in square brackets if inapplicable.
Note 4. If the Valuation Officer certifies that the rateable value would have been less but for the improvement by the amounts mentioned in the certificate, the rateable value will be reduced by those amounts for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, except in the case where a proportion only of the cost was contributed by the tenant in which case the amounts of the reductions will be proportionately reduced accordingly").
—[Baroness Young.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is the very objectionable Schedule to which I referred; but I have no doubt that as the noble Baroness has been willing to make a mess of the Bill in previous parts she will see no reason for having it tidy on this occasion.
BARONKSS YOUNG: My Lords, I had not intended to speak further on this matter, as we have already had a very

1789
extensive debate on leaseholds. I accept entirely that this may not be correctly drafted. In fact, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is right in saying that; but as we have debated the principle of this matter I felt that in the interests of furthering the business of the House it was unnecessary to go over it all over again. I am quite prepared to speak at length but I thought that the House would prefer it if I moved it formally—which I do.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the purpose of my remarks was to make arrangements for the avoidance of a Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 72.
After Schedule 7 insert the following new schedule:

REHABILITATION ORDERS
General
1.—(1) A rehabilitation order may, in addition to applying to any building to which section 107F of this Act applies, be made to apply to—

(a) any other building comprised in the clearance area,

(b) any land or building which is not comprised in the clearance area but which is subject to the same compulsory purchase order or, as the case may be, has (since being included in the clearance area) been acquired by the authority by agreement under section 43(2) of the Act of 1957, and

(c) any land or building to which the provisions of Part III of the Act of 1957 apply by virtue of section 49 of that Act.

(2) Where, by virtue of this Schedule, a local authority are freed from the duty to demolish a house which was included in a clearance area as being unfit for human habitation, the authority shall take such steps as are necessary—

(a) to bring the building up to the full standard, or

(b) where the building is not vested in the authority, to ensure that it is brought up to that standard.

(3) A local authority may, for the purpose of section 107F of this Act, accept undertakings from the owner of a building, or any other person who has or will have an interest in the building, and in particular undertakings concerning the works to be carried out to bring the building up to the full standard, and the time within which the works are to be carried out.
2.—(1) A local authority shall not make a rehabilitation order relating to land subject to a compulsory purchase order unless they
1790
are satisfied that, after the rehabilitation order comes into force, they can effectively fulfil their duties under Part III of the Act of 1957 as regards the remaining land subject to the compulsory purchase order.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, a rehabilitation order may be made notwithstanding that the effect of the order in excluding any building from a clearance area is to sever that area into two or more separate and distinct areas, and in any such case the provisions of Part III of the Act of 1957 relating to the effect of a compulsory purchase order when confirmed, and to the proceedings to be taten after confirmation of the order, shall apply as if those areas formed one clearance area.
(3) In exercising his power under this Schedule of confirming a rehabilitation order subject to modifications, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the considerations in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
3.—(1) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to any land or building in respect of which a local authority have made a rehabilitation order which has been confirmed in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule; and in this Schedule "relevant date" means the date on which the rehabilitation order was confirmed or, as the case may be, on which confirmation was refused.
(2) If, at the relevant date (in the case of any land or building subject to a compulsory purchase order)—

(a) no interest in the land or building has, after the date on which the compulsory purchase order concerned was made, vested in the authority, and

(b) no notice to treat has been served by the authority under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, in respect of any interest in the land or building, the compulsory purchase order shall cease to have effect and, where applicable, the building shall cease to be comprised in a clearance area.

(3) Where sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply, the authority shall, where applicable, cease to be subject to the duty, imposed by Part III of the Act of 1957, to demolish the building, and in relation to any interest in the land or building which at the relevant date has not vested in the authority (being land or a building subject to a compulsory purchase order) the compulsory purchase order shall have effect as if—

(a) in the case of a house, it had been made and confirmed under Part V of the Act of 1957, and

(b) in any other case, it had been made and confirmed under Part VI of the Act of 1971.

(4) If the land or building, or any interest therein, was vested in the authority at the relevant date it shall be treated—

(a) in the case of a house, as appropriated to the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1957, and

(b) in any other case, as appropriated to the purposes of Part VI of the Act of 1971.

(5) Where a local authority have made a rehabilitation order they shall not—

(a) serve notice to treat under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 in respect of any land or building subject to the relevant compulsory purchase order, or

(b) demolish any such building, until after the relevant date.

(6) Where the owner of any building in respect of which a rehabilitation order could be made applies to the local authority concerned for such an order to be made in respect of the building, and the authority refuse to make the order, they shall give their reasons for so refusing in writing to the owner.
(7) Where a rehabilitation order is confirmed in accordance with this Schedule and the effect of the order is to exclude from a clearance area any land adjoining a general improvement area in England and Wales (within the meaning of Part II of the Housing Act 1969), that land shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, be included in the general improvement area.
Procedure for making and confirming rehabilitation orders
4. A rehabilitation order shall be made in the prescribed form and shall describe, by reference to a map—

(a) the land and buildings to which it applies,

(b) the boundaries of the clearance area to which it applies,

(c) the boundaries of the land comprised in any relevant compulsory purchase order, and

(d) the parts (if any) of the land to which the rehabilitation order applies which will remain subject to a compulsory purchase order.

5.—(1) Before submitting the rehabilitation order to the Secretary of State the local authority shall—

(a) publish in one or more newspapers circulating within their district a notice in the prescribed form stating that an order has been made and describing the land and buildings to which it applies and naming a place where a copy of the order and its accompanying map may be seen at all reasonable hours, and

(b) serve—

(i) on every person on whom notice of the making of any relevant compulsory purchase order was served, or

(ii) on the person from whom the land or building was purchased by agreement, as the case may be, or

(iii) on their successors in title, where appropriate a notice in the prescribed form stating the effect of the rehabilitation order and that it is about to be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation and specifying the time within and the manner in which objections thereto can be made.

(2) A notice which is to be served on any person under this paragraph shall be served in
1792
accordance with the provisions of section 169 of the Act of 1957; and any notice served in accordance with this paragraph shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which the authority are seeking confirmation of the rehabilitation order.
6.—(1) If no objection is duly made by any of the persons on whom notices are required to be served in accordance with paragraph 5 above, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, then, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit confirm the order with or without modifications.
(2) If any objection duly made it not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall, before confirming the order, either cause a public local inquiry to be held or afford to a person by whom an objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an oportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(2) If any objection duly made is not withdrawn and the report of the person who held the inquiry or of the person appointed under sub-paragraph (2) above, the Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, confirm the order with or without modification.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary of State may require any person who has made an objection to state in writing the grounds thereof and may disregard the objection for the purposes of this paragraph if he is satisfied that the objection relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by whom the compensation is to be assessed.
(5) The Secretary of State may modify a rehabilitation order by extending its application to any other land or building to which the Order could have been made to apply by the authority making it. but shall not do so unless—

(a) he is satisfied that any house which he proposes to include in the rehabilitation order should be improved to the full standard, instead of being demolished,

(b) he is satisfied, in respect of any land or building which he proposes to include in the rehabilitation order (being land or a building which is not comprised in the clearance area concerned) that its acquisition by the local authority is unnecessary, and

(c) he has served on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or a lesser period than a month) and, so far as it is reasonably practical to ascertain such persons, on every mortgagee, of the land or building, a notice in the prescribed form stating the effect of his proposals and has afforded them an opportunity to make their views known.

7.—(1) The provisions of Schedule 4 to the Act of 1957 shall have effect, subject to the necessary modifications, in relation to the validity and date of operation of a rehabilitation order as they have effect in relation to the validity and date of operation of a compulsory purchase order made under section 43 of that Act.
(2) The modifications subject to which the provisions of Schedule 4 are to have effect by virtue of this paragraph shall include the addition, at the end of paragraph 1, of the words—
'and every person on whom the Secretary of State served notice under paragraph 6(5)(c) of Schedule 8 to the Housing Act 1974.'
8.—(1) In this Schedule 'prescribed' means prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Schedule; and "full standard ' has the same meaning as in section 107F(3) of this Act.
(2) An order under this paragraph shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) In the application of this Schedule to Scotland the words ' as being unfit for human habitation ' shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was taken with Amendment No. 39.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I welcomed Amendment No. 39 in warm terms. I should like to add to my welcome how fortunate it is that this Schedule will be brought forward at a time when many local authorities are spot-listing buildings and it will enable additional flexibility in this procedure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8—[Option Mortgages: Amendments of Part II of Housing Subsidies Act 1967]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 122, line 43, after ("(d)") insert ("in a case where the specified person or persons named in a declaration under paragraph (c) above is, are or include the borrower or all or any of the joint borrowers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I will move this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 en bloc, all of which have been already spoken to on Amendment No. 51.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74.
Amendment moved—
Page 123. line 60, at end insert—
("(xi) if the lender becomes aware that a declaration under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of this subsection is false in a material particular, the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the date on which the lender first becomes so aware.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 36, at end insert—
("(5) In subsection (4) of that section for the words from ' conditions specified in subsection (3)(c) ' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words ' conditions specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3) of this section there are satisfied such other conditions as may be specified in the direction; and where any such direction has effect in relation to an option notice, the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of section 24B of this Act shall apply as if the reference therein to the residence condition were a reference to such condition as may be so specified.
(6) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
' (5A) In the case of an option notice to which a direction under subsection (5) of this section applies, paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section shall have effect as if for the words from" before the expiry "to" to be occupied "there were substituted the words" the land in question is being and will continue to be used wholly or partly for the purposes of a dwelling occupied '.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76:
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 40, at end insert:
(" (5) In any case where the option notice in respect of the relevant loan is one to which a direction under section 24(5) of this Act applies, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77:
Amendment moved—
Page 127, line 40, leave out ("section 24(3) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (3) of section 24 of this Act (other than a declaration delivered in respect of an option notice to which a direction under subsection (5) of that section applies)").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 78:
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 23, leave out ("after subsection (4)") and insert ("in subsection (2)(b) after the words" this section "there shall be inserted the words" and to such modifications as may bo prescribed "
(c) after subsection (4) of that section ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Service Charges; Amendments of Sections 90 and 91 of Housing Finance Act 1972]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79:
Page 129, line 19, at end insert:
("' 5A. After section 28 there shall be inserted the following section:—
Recovery of subsidy in certain cases
28A.—(1) If a declaration under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of section 24 of this Act is false in a material particular, the Secretary of State may recover from the borrower or, as the case may be, jointly and severally from the borrowers an amount equal to the total of the payments received by the lender by virtue of subsection (2)(a)(ii) of that section in relation to the loan in respect of which the declaration was made.
(2) If, in a case where subsection (5) of section 24B of this Act applies, the lender docs not receive a notification under that subsection, the Secretary of State may recover from the borrower or, as the case may be, jointly and severally from the borrowers, an amount equal to the total of the payments received by the lender as mentioned in subsection (1) above after the expiry of the period of 2 months beginning on the day following the expiry of the period of 12 months specified in the said subsection (5).
(3) If, in a case where subsection (6) of section 24B of this Act applies, the lender does not receive a notification under that subsection, the Secretary of State may rccover from the borrower or, as the case may be, jointly and severally from the borrowers, an amount equal to the total of the payments received by the lender as mentioned in subsection (1) above after the expiry of the period of 2 months beginning with the date on which the condition specified in the said subsection (6) first ceased to be fulfilled."
6B. At the end of section 32(1) (interpretation) there shall be inserted the following definition:—
" ' prescribed ' means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State; and a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 80.
Page 130, line 8. at end insert—
The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907
("1. In the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907, after section 38 there shall be inserted the following section—
Notice of termination in respect of dwelling houses
38A. Any notice of termination of tenancy or notice of removal given under section 37 or 38 above in respect of a dwelling-house, on or after the date of the coming into operation of section (Form and content of certain notices to quit) of the Housing Act 1974, shall be in writing and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by virtue of section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, and Rule 112 of Schedule 1 to this Act shall no longer apply to any such notice under section 37 above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Clause 113 whereby any notice to quit any premises let as a dwelling house is required to be in writing and to contain such information as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 132, line 41, at end insert—
("(5) Section 72 of the Housing Act 1964 (restriction on recovery of possession after making of compulsory purchase order) shall be amended as follows:—

(a) in subsection (1) in the definition of "the relevant period" the words "of twelve months", in each case where they occur, shall be omitted and after the words "making of the said order" there shall be inserted the words "and ending on the third anniversary of the date on which the order becomes operative";

(b) in subsection (2) in paragraph (a) for the words from "not exceeding" to "said compulsory purchase order" there shall be substituted the words "not extending beyond the end of the period of three years beginning on the relevant date" and in paragraph (b) for the words "twelve months" there shall be substituted the words "three years"; and

(c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

"(2A) for the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant date" means:—

(a) if the compulsory purchase order concerned has become operative before the date on which the court exercises its

1797
power under that subsection, the date on which the order became operative; and

(b) in any other case the date on which the court exercises or, as the case may be, exercised its power under paragraph (a) of that subsection in relation to the order for possession in question ".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 85 will be consequential upon this Amendment. These Amendments fulfil an undertaking given in Committee in another place to my honourable friend, the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. The Amendments, though they may seem complex, have a simple purpose. It is to extend the period under current legislation 12 months during which a county court can, in the case of certain properties, suspend the opera-tion of an order for possession against an occupant of a property subject to a compulsory purchase order. This is because 12 months is not usually long enough—particularly in difficult cases—for compulsory purchase order procedures to be completed. The period will now be the whole period between the making of the compulsory purchase order and the Secretary of State's decision on it, plus, if it is confirmed, three years. As at present, if the compulsory purchase order is quashed or not confirmed, the period for suspension ceases and an order for possession can be executed.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the explanation he has given. Is it the case, therefore, that when a local authority seeks to acquire com-pulsorily a house and is successful in doing so, the tenant remains in occupation and this avoids having empty houses in an area where almost by definition there would be housing shortage? If I understood the noble Lord correctly, the tenant would have the right to remain in the house if the local authority were successful, but if it were not successful the owner could have possession of the house.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think the noble Barones has expressed the position correctly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 132, line 48, at end insert—
(" 10A. In section 135 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, the same amendments shall be
1798
made as are set out in paragraph 5(5) above with the substitution for the reference to an order for possession of a reference to a decree of removing or warrant of ejection or other like order.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the equivalent for Scotland of Amendment No. 81.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 135, line 11, at end insert—
(" (5A) After subsection (3) of section 62 of that Act (rent limit where no rent is registered) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
" (3A) The reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above to another tenancy includes, in addition to a tenancy to which sections 62 to 66 of this Act apply, a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Act of 1971—

(a) which subsisted at any time after the operative date, within the meaning of the Housing Act 1974; and

(b) under which, immediately before it came to an end, the interest of the landlord belonged to a housing association".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment inserts a new subsection (3)(a) after section 62(3) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972. The new subsection ensures that where after the operative date a regulated tenancy becomes a housing association tenancy, the rents recoverable shall not exceed the rent recoverable under the former regulated tenancy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 137, line 17, at end insert—
(" 31A after subsection (3) of section 83 of the 1972 Act (rent limit where no rent is registered) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
" (3A) The reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above to another tenancy includes, in addition to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies, a regulated tenancy, within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968,

(a) which subsisted at any time after the operative date, within the meaning of the Housing Act 1974; and

(b) under which, immediately before it came to an end, the interest of the landlord belonged to a housing association".").

The noble Lord said: The rent limit of housing association tenancies is set by Section 83 of the Housing Finance Act 1972. From the operative date, April 1, 1975, that will cease to apply to housing

1799
associations which do not become registered and the rent limit provisions of the Rent Act 1968 will become applicable subject to certain transitional provisions in Schedule 3. But such associations might later become registered, or their dwellings might be sold to a registered housing association, in which event the Rent Act will cease to apply and Part VIII of the 1972 Act will again apply. As Section 83 stands, the rent limit would be that for the last previous Part VIII tenancy—which could have the anomalous result that the rent would have to be reduced because the association had become registered, or the dwelling had been bought by a registered assocation. This Amendment corrects the position by recognising for rent limit purposes the rent under any regulated tenancy in which the interest of the landlord was owned by a housing association, whether registered or not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12—[Enactments repealed]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 85.
Amendment moved—
Page 146, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
("' In section 72(1) the wording of twelve months, in each place where they occur.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with, pursuant to Resolution:
8.8 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be given its Third Reading, may I pay tribute to the way in which it has been dealt with by your Lordships on both sides of the House. I am most grateful to my noble friends for the wealth of experience they have brought to bear on the issues we have discussed and for the helpful part they have played in our debates, and, if I may say so, particularly for their appreciating that in a Bill introduced in circumstances attending consideration of this matter we could not do all that we should have wished.
My Lords, I should like to pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Hughes for his tremendous help. My task would indeed have been a very difficult
1800
one without his very fine assistance. May I say, too, that I am grateful to the noble Baroness and her colleagues for the cooperation they have given, which has ensured the speed with which this Bill has been dealt with. I appreciate the constructive approach that she has always made and, if I may so, the same remarks apply to her noble friend Lord Sandys.
We have all been working under very great difficulties. References has been made to them and I feel it is a considerable credit to this House that we have been able to arrange and to carry on our business in the manner we have done. In so far as it has lain within my power, I have seen to it that the noble Baroness and her noble friends have had all the assistance that we could provide. But I am well aware of the difficulties under which she and they have had to work, and that is why I appreciate the contribution that has come from the other side of the House.
However, although there has been general good will on all sides there have inevitably been times when differences have arisen between us. I am sure it will be understood when I say I am sorry that at Report stage it has been necessary so often for Divisions to take place. I quite understand the position but, inevitably, it has meant that we have spent a great deal more time on the Report stage, and of course we have had one or two rather lengthy debates that I do not suppose anybody anticipated when we started. However, everything has been done in a constructive and helpful way.
This is not the time to reopen the arguments with which we have been concerned during the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages of this Bill, but rather to reflect upon the amount of work that has been put into the Bill in this House, and the extent of the changes which have been made here in many parts of the Bill. Indeed, the Bill leaves this House strengthened in many directions, and changed in some other directions that the Government would have preferred not to be made, but that is the decision of your Lordships.
I should like to take the opportunity of referring to one or two points, because I indicated that on Third Reading I should touch on them. First, let me deal with an issue which has been raised two or three times. The Government

1801
see priority neighbourhoods not as a dilution of the housing action area concept, but very much in the way of buttressing it; and I want to re-emphasise that that is our view. They are a means of containing stress, and are deliberately designed to prevent that stress from just rippling out from the areas where local authorities can immediately take intrinsic action, and are a means of programming future action. Where resources are limited—and the noble Baroness has referred to this once or twice—whether of lime, money, staff or expertise, in our view it is on housing action areas that authorities should concentrate. Priority neighbourhoods are an additional weapon to be used where appropriate, both for the present and for working towards wider and longer-term objectives.
Secondly, I want to say that my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has asked me to emphasise that the Government are very anxious to promote the development of cooperative forms of housing, both by local authorities and by housing associations, whereby tenants can be given a real stake in the way in which their homes are managed and, if possible, in the equity. By way of showing that consideration of issues involved in this Bill will not be closed when it becomes an Act, may I say that we look forward with pleasure to the visit that the noble Baroness will be paying to the Department to discuss the questions involved in co-ownership.
Lastly—and I think it is a fitting theme for me to end on—I should like to reinforce what has been said already from I this side of the House, about the need to involve and consult residents, particularly (although not only) in housing action areas, once an area has been declared. I should like to acknowledge what the noble Baroness has said on that subject as well. We must recognise the dangers of long drawn-out procedures before declaration, which could operate against the interests of the very people whose living conditions were are concerned to improve. The Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will draw particular attention to the provisions in the Bill for securing publicity, the giving of information and the answering of queries. I think the noble Baroness was anxious that I should say that and get it firmly placed on the Record.
1802
Also, in their advice to authorities it will be made quite clear that experience has shown that unless residents are involved after declaration in the formative stages of the action programme—to put it at its lowest—the programme will not work out. My Lords, before the Bill leaves us on its way to another place, I should like once again to thank the House for its help during these difficult days. I beg to move that the Housing Bill be now given a Third Reading.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
8.16 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, at this late stage I do not wish to make a long speech on Third Reading, but I cannot let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Sandys, who has done so much to help me on the Bill, and other noble Lords who have supported me in some of these very complicated subjects, notably my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith. I should also like to pay a tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Hughes, for the help they have given me in sending me notes on some of the Government Amendments, and also for the very useful meeting that I had at the Department of the Environment last week.
As the House will know, our view about the Bill is one of support and, therefore, all the Amendments which we have moved to it and the observations which we have made have been designed to be constructive. We wish to see it on the Statute Book and therefore we wish to see it through this House. There are three points that I should like to make. The first point is that Part I of the Bill enormously extends the powers of the housing corporations. This again is something that we welcome as we look upon the housing corporations as a third arm in the provision of housing. There are, of course, the owner occupiers, the local authorities and now the housing corporation, and I think it will be important in the future that it should look carefully at the provisions it makes. We have already discussed the difficulties which I can see arising as a result of the Rent Bill and the difficulties which face local authorities in producing the flexibility of housing which people demand. It is in that respect that we look to the housing corporation to fill a

1803
great many of the gaps that will be left. I am sure that it is addressing itself to these problems and that it will be thinking along these lines as to what the future needs are for the single person, for people who are mobile, for students and for large groups of people who will require housing and will find it very difficult in the future.
I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said about priority neighbourhoods and housing action areas. We had better agree to differ on this point and I can only say that I hope my fears are not fulfilled, because I believe very much in the principle of the housing action area; I think it can help enormously the stress areas of the inner cities.
In conclusion, I am very glad to hear that the Government are interested in this problem, which I pointed out on Second Reading, of co-ownership and cooperative housing. I look forward to the meeting that we are to have with the Minister next week on this subject. At the same time, I am very glad that the Government agree, as I do, that in housing action areas, general improvement areas and priority neighbourhoods there must be the maximum involvement of the residents. Not only do I believe this to be the right thing to do, but I believe in practical terms it will yield the results that we all wish to achieve. I therefore hope that local authorities will co-operate in making this Bill a reality.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTHERN IRELAND(YOUNG PERSONS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1974
8.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move that the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on July 15, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move that this House approves the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974. With the leave of the House, I should like to deal at the same time with the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974, and with the two corresponding Scottish Regulations.
My Lords, these Regulations increases the income limits for legal aid, advice and assistance. Their background and purpose is this When the income limits for legal aid were last increased, towards the end of last year (with effect from January 1 of this year), the then Government announced that in future they would be reviewed annually to take account of increases in supplementary benefits, which are up-rated annually. This is a considerable improvement in the legal aid field, because it means that the income limits will not be eroded by inflation, as happens if they are only reviewed at irregular intervals. The Regulations now before your Lordships are the result of the first annual review of the legal aid income limits. On July 22 there came into force the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Resources) Regulations 1974, which made various increases in supplementary benefit, including a rise of £1·25 a week in the ordinary weekly rate of short-term supplementary benefit, from £7·15 to £8·40 a week, an increase of nearly 17½ per cent. The Regulations which I am introducing make comparable increases in the income limits.
My Lords, I now come to the actual provisions of the Regulations with which I can deal briefly. The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations raise the upper income limit for legal aid from £1,175 to £1,380, and raised the income limit for free legal aid from £375 to £440. The financial limits for legal aid are calculated by reference to what is called "disposable income", that is, a person's net income after certain deductions have been made in respect of various specified

1805
living expenses, such as income tax, rates, rent, maintenance of dependants and so on. The increases mean that in future a person will be eligible for legal aid if he has a disposable income of up to £1,380, while if his disposable income is less than £440, he will be eligible for free legal aid, without payment of any contribution.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974 make a comparable increase in the upper income limit for legal advice and assistance. In future, a person will be eligible for advice and assistance if he has a disposable income of up to £28 a week, instead of £24·50 as at present. The financial limits for advice and assistance are calculated on a rather different basis from those for legal aid, but they are designed to achieve broadly the same result.
My Lords, these Regulations must be read in conjunction with a third set of Regulations, which are not before the House this evening since they are not subject to Affirmative Resolution, but which will come into force at the same time as the other Regulations. These raise from £12·50 to £14 the disposable income above which a person in receipt of legal advice and assistance is required to pay a contribution and. in consequence, prescribe a new scale of contributions for advice and assistance, starting at £1·50 for a person with a disposable income of between £14 and £15 a week, and rising, by eight stages, to £21 for a person with a disposable income of £26 to £28 a week.
My Lords, I commend these increases to your Lordships. They are not dramatic but they are extremely useful. They are designed to do no more and no less than to keep step with increases in supplementary benefits, following the excellent principle of annual review which was accepted last year. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on July 15, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, we have a great deal still to do this evening. I think this is a result of inflation and we have no matters of principle to raise on any of these Regulations. I would therefore welcome them all on behalf of the Opposition.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1974
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved—That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on July 15, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1974
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on July 16, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1974
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial) Conditions) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on July 16, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
8.29 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gardiner)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Champion in the Chair]
Clause 8 [Defamation actions]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 29. I gather this Amendment should stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Simon.
LORD SIMON of GLAISDALE: I apologise to my noble and learned friends Lord Diplock and Viscount Dilhorne that this Amendment has been put down in their names in the Marshalled List. I originally put down all the Amendments, including this one, as alternatives to the way my noble and learned friends wished to deal with this clause. I think at this stage it is preferable that their proposals should be considered. I can, if necessary, put down these Amendments on Report stage, but I do not propose to move them to-night.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 8, leave out from ("shall") to ("an") in line 9 and insert ("affect").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment to substitute for the words "restrict the defences available to the defendant in" the single word "affect". That follows the precedent used in Clause 7(1). As I said, it is purely a drafting Amendment, and is also an improvement.
LORD GARDINER: It appears that this Amendment is unnecessary but innocuous. Therefore, I advise the Committee to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(" (5) A defendant in any such action shall not by virtue of subsection (3) above, be entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope I shall be forgiven if I spend a little time on this Amendment. What I say covers the comparable Amendments Nos. 35 and 37, which deal with subsequent subsections. With the exception, I think, of the licensed perjury clause these are the most controversial subsections in
1808
this Bill. They are controversial, because they have an impact on a wider field of law of outstanding social importance, the legal framework which preserves the freedom of speech in this country—the law of defamation. Unfortunately—and this, I fear, is largely the fault of past generations of judges and of lawyers—it is a highly technical framework. In considering these clauses, one must remember that they deal with what happens in actual proceedings in courts of law.
The law of defamation is not applicable only to the Press, to broadcasting and to publishers. It is a matter which affects every one of us, whenever we speak, whenever we put pen to paper, whenever we lend a book from our library to a friend, or hand over a newspaper for him to read, for each of these occasions is a fresh publication which may render us liable for publishing a defamatory statement. The reason the media attract attention principally in this field is because they are worth powder and shot for suing, because they are rich, and because this is what gets the greatest publicity today.
The principle of the law of defamation as it has been developed is that it seeks to safeguard three principles. They are that no man shall be penalised for what he says about another if it is not calculated to lower that other in the estimation of right-thinking people, whether it is true or not; the second principle is that he shall not be penalised if what he says is true, however much it may damage the reputation of another; and the third principle is that if what he says is said in the performance of a legitimate duty, or for the protection of a legitimate interest, and in the honest belief that it is true, then, if he takes no improper advantage of the occasion for saying it he will not be penalised.
That position safeguarding freedom of speech was reached only after a long battle over the centuries, a battle in which, I am sorry to say, judges perhaps played a leading role in seeking to enable the suppression of the truth. Originally, the criminal law of libel was the weapon used. At Common Law, the object of criminal libel was not to protect a man's reputation, but to prevent resort to violence in a violent age. Every defamatory statement was a crime at Common Law, however true it was, and even if

1809
published only to the person defamed. But in the 18th century, the law of criminal libel was a weapon widely used by the Government to suppress publication of views of which Government did not approve. Quite properly, juries resented this, judges endeavoured to thwart them and, eventually, Fox's Libel Act was passed which enabled juries to refuse to convict persons prosecuted for expressing views which were unpopular with Government.
It was not until 1842 that we had Lord Campbell's Act, which allowed as, a defence to a prosecution for criminal libel if the defendants proved not only the truth of the statement, but also that publication was for the public benefit; and theoretically, up to this very day, that still remains the law of criminal libel in this country. But over the last 100 years, it has fallen into disuse as being incompatible with the views as to freedom of speech which are common to-day, and which, indeed, are provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is very rare for any prosecution for criminal libel to be brought to-day, and so far as I know in the last 100 years there has been brought only one in which the words complained of were not false.
The civil law of libel, which is the branch of the law of defamation with which Clause 8 deals, has always been more civilised than the criminal law. It has always accepted the three principles that I mentioned earlier, and it never adopted those features of the criminal law which are now quite out of consonance with modern views of the right to freedom of speech. Subsection (5) of Clause 8 of the present Bill as it stands is modelled on the obsolete criminal law of libel, and for the first time introduces these principles into the civil law of defamation. The civil law of defamation works in two quite proper ways in practice.
First, it acts as a deterrent to prevent abuse of freedom of speech; and secondly, it acts as a remedy to recompense the victim of abuse of freedom of speech for unjustified damage caused to his reputation. In the present Bill the primary purpose of the defamation previsions in Clause 8 is to act as a deterrent, to deter persons unjustifiably bringing out a suspended conviction. But
1810
as a deterrent it deters in some ways too little and in some ways too much. And this for practical reasons. It deters too little because actions for defamation are so costly and so complicated that it is only worth while suing a defendant who is wealthy or who is insured. So that whatever we do about the "law of defamation this will not in practice strike at what I believe is the greatest evil, or the greatest risk of disclosure; the gossip on the shop floor, the tittle-tattle in the club and over the coffee cup. We cannot cure that.
The other defect of the law of civil defamation as a deterrent is because it deters too much. Unless you are able to rely simply on the defence of truth of the words published, the defence of justification, the technicality of the law, the unpredictability of the result and the cost of litigation, running into tens of thousands of pounds, make it very ill-advised to run the risk of publication, even if the prospects of success are very good, if the plaintiff is impecunious. And in any event you will be advised by any sensible lawyer not to run the risk if there is any danger or any risk of lack of success.
It is because of these defects in the law of libel that the Faulks Committee has been set up and has been considering for some years past ways of simplifying the law, of trying to overcome these disadvantages of the law of civil defamation as an instrument for preventing abuse of the right of freedom of speech. My objection to subsection (5)—and the same applies to (6) and (7)—is that it pre-empts the Report and adds enormously to the complications of the law of libel where spent convictions are concerned.
I recognise that there are certain instances in which the truth of the statement about spent convictions ought not to suffice as a defence; for example, when the disclosure of a spent conviction is actuated by spite or where it is dragged in gratuitously in order to make an article in a newspaper, book or magazine more sensational and so enable it to sell better. Amendment No. 34, which I shall come to in a moment, is, I hope my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner will accept, a genuine attempt to do this; to prevent unnecessary and

1811
unjustified disclosure of spent convictions, but to do it simply and by applying well-known concepts already existing in the law of defamation. The present subsection (5) has, I recognise, the same purpose in mind, but, I would submit, sets about it in the wrong way and in a way which involves immense complications, as indeed are illustrated by the later Amendments, Nos. 37A to 39A, which have been put down in the name of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack—five pages dealing with librarians.
What subsection (5) is really saying is that where a spent conviction or circumstances ancillary to it have been disclosed you cannot rely upon truth alone, you must rely on something else, and the something else that you must rely on is either,
" (a) that publication of the words complained of was in the public interest ",
or (b)—on which I will not pause at the moment—or
" (c) that he did no more than to republish innocently a document first published before the conviction became spent ".
Paragraphs (a) and (c) are trying to deal with entirely different kinds of defence. I will, if I may, deal first with (a), which is intended to deal with deliberate muckraking, disclosure of conviction for motives of spite or motives of sensationalism; and it does it by referring to the necessity to prove that the publication of the words complained of was in the public interest.
The first question which is not clear in that is whether the question, whether the publication was in the public interest, is a question of law, in which case it is a question for the judge, or whether it is a question of fact, in which case it is a question for the jury. The concept of public interest is well known in the law of civil defamation, but in the context of the defence of fair comment, whether the matter on which the comment is made is a matter of public interest, in English law is a question for the judge to decide. But it is a very different question from whether a particular publication—which may be a private publication on a particular occasion from one friend to another, and by no means necessarily a publication by the media—is in the public interest.
What it really means is: does he, the judge, think that it ought to have been published, and the answer which he gives to that must depend upon his personal idiosyncracies, his personal attitude, to that kind of thing. It is not a suitable question for a judge. In the criminal law and in the legislation of New South Wales, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred in his speech on Second Reading—and which, incidentally, has nothing to do with rehabilitation, but deals with the general law of libel in that country—the phrase used is "whether publication is for the public benefit", and there it is a question of fact for the jury. A jury in libel actions is extremely unpredictable, but if it has to be a choice between a jury's decision and a judge's decision on that particular matter, I should have thought that, as in the criminal law and as in the legislation of New South Wales, it ought to be a matter for the jury.
It has seemed to me—because the basic idea behind this Bill is to erect a wall of silence around the spent conviction (one of which I approve)—that if the purpose of doing it in this way is to prevent disclosure in the course of an action for libel, it will not work because no publication could be in the public interest unless the words were true. So you will have to go into the details of the conviction—the circumstances of it, anyway— in order to determine whether the matter was in the public interest.
The alternative way of dealing with the matter is provided for in the Amendment which I am moving which reads:
" A defendant … shall not … be entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice."
This follows and applies the concept and the wording which has been familiar in the law of libel in analogous situations since as long ago as the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888. Malice, the word which appears in the Amendment, is a well-known concept in the law of defamation. It was defined as recently as January of this year by this House in its judcial capacity in the case of Horrocks v. Lowe. In a sentence it means taking improper advantage of the occasion of the publication. I understand that the Faulks Committee will recommend that as a statutory definition of malice.
If you apply that concept and wording to the muck-raking type of disclosure that we all of us wish to prevent—bringing in a gratuitous reference to a spent conviction, whether it is in a newspaper article or in a private communication—under the existing law if there is a gratuitous reference it will almost certainly carry the innuendo that the person whose description has been referred to is still one of a criminal disposition. It would therefore be defamatory, if that were the true innuendo, under the existing law, and no alteration is needed for it. But muck-raking journalists and their legal advisers know how to be careful, and it may be that to avoid the innuendo they can make it clear that they are suggesting that the person whose spent conviction they have disclosed is, in fact, a reformed character. That is the kind of cleverness that would be prevented by this Amendment. The Amendment is equally appropriate to private communication, taking improper advantage of the occasion.
As I have said, the concept that malice defeats a defence which would otherwise be available on the publication of particular matters was first introduced in 1888 to cover fair and accurate reports of particular kinds of proceedings of local authorities, and the like, which were not protected before that date. These fair and accurate reports have been protected unless malice is proved by the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, and that Act worked satisfactorily for 60 years until the Porter Committee considered it in about 1948—a committee of which I was secretary.
Having found that it had worked satisfactorily, they recommended its extension to various other kinds of reports of which the one most analogous, and very closely analogous, to the kind of matter with which we are dealing, was proceedings in courts in Commonwealth countries. That extension was made by Parliament in 1952, and 30 years have passed since then and no complaints that I know of have been made that it did not work satisfactorily. What is proposed in this Amendment is the kind of test that has stood the test of time for nearly 100 years.
May I turn next to paragraph (c), the innocent republication of a document first published. That is intended to cover
1814
librarians and publishers reissuing documents, books, and newspapers which have referred to spent convictions, having been published at a time before the conviction was spent, and generally at the time it took place, As the Bill stands, there is no real protection to such persons, librarians, those who have in their files past numbers of newspapers. In order to try to provide adequate protection, your Lordships will see the lengthy Amendments Nos. 35D and E, and 38A to 39A. Those are sufficient illustrations of the complication of trying to deal with the matter in this way.
With great respect to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, if we come to those Amendments I do not think they succeed in doing what I know he is trying to do. But if all that is rendered unnecessary by the short and simple redraft of subsection (5) which is suggested in this Amendment, it covers paragraph (a), the matters intended to be covered by paragraph (b) and it covers those intended to be covered by paragraph (c). It does everything that is legitimately possible to protect rehabilitated persons. It does it simply, it does it within the framework of the existing law of defamation and it does it by means which experience has shown works, and has worked effectively over many years in very closely analogous situations. I beg to move.
LORD GOODMAN: As one sympathetic to the Amendment, may I ask a question of the noble and learned Lord? How does he see the way a trial would proceed? It seems to me that his Amendment is open to the objection which he made himself about public interest considerations, in that one would have to prove the fact that the conviction had been published before one could start considering the question of whether there had been malice. I wonder whether this raises a difficulty which is perhaps fundamental to this particular clause?
LORD DIPLOCK: The noble Lord is right. There is no way of dealing with this either in the form of the present Bill or by the Amendment which I have suggested which will not involve giving publicity to a spent conviction. But if you are going to try to use the law of defamation to deter people from doing that, that is the price you have to pay. The price is less by doing it in accordance with the

1815
Amendment than would be the price of doing it in the form of the Bill as it stands.
9.2 p.m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: With some diffidence I rise after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, to speak from the point of view both of a layman and as a member of the Faulks Committee. During the three years I have been on the Committee I have been terrified by the potential of this clause in the Bill, if it goes through, for all ordinary and simple laymen. The complications seem to be enormous. In my capacity both as a layman and a Faulks Committee man I am astonished at the way in which the Bill has some how crept up on us, almost by stealth—I am not imputing any wrong motive to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—but it has taken us all by-surprise at how nearly this proposition has Heaven knows we have had plenty of warning. The Press, the other place, the layman, everybody, have been taken by surprise at how nearly this position has already become law. By courtesy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the Faulks Committee was able to see early on the original draft of the Bill, the pamphlet Living it Down, and so on. We have been very much alive to it, both the professionals and the "silly soldiers" who found themselves on that Committee. I am still astonished how it has crept up on us, almost unnoticed.
As a member of the Faulks Committee I would say that we have not been unanimous about several things. A more libellous body of people I have never been associated with than my colleagues on the Committee on Defamation, but on this matter we were all agreed. Laymen, barristers, solicitors, former judges, people from the publishing and journalistic world were all unanimous that the clause is full of anomolies and we think it cannot be resolved in its present form. We have pondered it long and carefully, and I would claim that we pondered it with great sympathy for the views which obviously inspired it. We still think it is wrong from end to end.
We were so alarmed by the way in which it seemed to be slipping past unnoticed that we published the interim Report from which I quoted a paragraph
1816
on the last occasion, when prematurely I fired off my first barrel. It was:
"… we view with disfavour the creation by this Bill of a special class of person about whom the truth cannot safely be told after a specified period. We think it is in the public interest that truth should at all times remain a defence to actions for defamation. It is in our view wrong, in principle, that a man about whom the truth is told should be entitled to damages on that account. Where it is unfair and not in the public interest to tell the truth about a person the publisher can be charged with criminal libel."
It is as simple as that. There are so many anomalies. I will quote only a few, but not any that have been quoted already. The Press has been full of such correspondence lately and other anomalies have been quoted in your Lordships' House. I will repeat as an example the lack of protection for the man fortunate enough not to be convicted. While the man who has been convicted is protected, the man who may have been in close cahoots with him has no protection at all. That, speaking as wearing both my lay hat and my Faulks hat, seems to be an unacceptable anomaly.
I remember a young man, a very good one, who was my pupil at Sandhurst just before the war, who got into trouble for passing "dud" cheques and was cashiered. After the war he came to me after what would have been the spent period asking me to back him for a job with one of the security organisations. I backed him to the hilt, but I had to confess that I knew about his conviction, otherwise what would have been my situation if a packet of diamonds in his charge disappeared on the way to Hatton Garden? I have no daughter, but if I had one and she became engaged to someone who was known to have had a spent conviction I would not have regarded your Lordships who knew of that fact as very kind friends of mine if you concealed it from me.
Only last week there occurred in Scotland the incredibly sad case of a boy of three who was sent to foster parents who beat him up—I think it has been reported in the English as well as the Scots Press—so that he is now a vegetable for life. This is a delicate matter because it is the subject of inquiry at the moment. But these people to whom he had been sent had in fact been convicted of cruelty to their own children five years ago. Plus or minus the time limit, they

1817
would have been protected under this Bill and the boy might still have gone to them. This Bill, we think, is full of anomalies. It does enormous justice to the individual whom we all want to rehabilitate, but we do not think it is fair to society.
Going back to my laymen's hat for my last paragraph, on one of the innumerable occasions on which this debate has been postponed I was enabled to take part in a ceremony which I had scrubbed as Chancellor of St. Andrew's University, and I heard our Professor of Moral Philosophy say this in a graduation speech:
"It is the first duty of a man or woman that the only justification he needs for concerning himself with any proposition is that it is true or false, and the only thing that finally matters to him is that it shall be true and not false. Meaning is an essential ingredient of the truth, and one which becomes increasingly difficult to achieve".
I submit that it is not our job to make it yet more difficult than it already is. I think, finally, that when it becomes a question between living it down or covering it up, the latter can lead to dry rot. Once you start manipulating the truth, you are in danger of introducing dry rot —and a dry rot which might gnaw at the very roots of society.
LORD GOODMAN: May I initially apologise for the fact that, as your Lordships will see from my garb, it is my intention to attend some splendidly artistic function as soon as I can escape from here. However, I want to proffer a remark or two, because I believe that, notwithstanding the fighting speech made by the noble and learned Lord who has fired his first barrel and will no doubt fire his second shortly, there is more or less unanimity in this Committee that the principle of this Bill is right, and that it is right that if a man has vindicated his career after five years of going straight it should not be held against him that he has had a previous conviction which will impair his future life or prevent him from leading a useful life in the future. What we are seeking to do is really an exercise in technicalities. We are trying to find a means to provide a sanction so that a person who wantonly infringes the principles of this Bill shall in some way be deterred.
Might I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that the use of the law of defamation is really totally wrong. First of all, it is totally
1818
inappropriate for most of the people who will be concerned with wishing to have their convictions erased. I do not want to suggest that it is a class matter, but it is certainly the case that the lower income groups in this country, the working classes of this country, very wisely do not resort to the law of defamation. They are wise enough not to become involved in the manifest absurdities of English legal procedures. I have never known of a case where two people living alongside each other in a working class area have sued each other for defamation. They may have engaged in fisticuffs or found other ways of resolving the matter, but the notion that defamation is an appropriate remedy is, I think, wholly misconceived.
I do not want to keep your Lordships long, but it is necessary to say a word about the really lamentable drafting of this Bill—I say this with great diffidence and really with great regret—because if you read this Bill with care, and I spent some hours over the weekend trying to work my way through its very entangled provisions, you find that this is the position. In his Clause 4, the noble and learned Lord has provided for a net covering a very wide area. It shall be totally inadmissible to refer to a previous spent conviction in any legal proceeding. Nothing could be wider than that, and perhaps nothing could be more admirable than that.
When you come to read the Bill in detail, however, you find that the immense erosions of this principle leave almost nothing behind, and what is left behind is an astonishing anomaly and inconsistency; because you find that all criminal proceedings are excluded from the operation of Clause 4. Also excluded from the operation of Clause 4 are civil proceedings if the judge considers, except in a specialised instance, that the issue of justice demands that you should admit evidence about the previous conviction. You find, in fact, that it is only where a man is proposing to institute an action for libel, a solemn civil action, on the basis that his very first document, his statement of claim, is going to assert a total falsehood by saying that someone has falsely and maliciously (to use the words in a statement of claim) made a statement about him which he knows is totally true. How the action would be conducted heaven only knows.

1819
What happens in the witness box, I have not the beginning of an idea. The plaintiff goes into the witness box and presumably says that the defendant said of him that he had been convicted six years ago. What he then says I have no idea. His counsel is not allowed to ask him whether in fact he was so convicted. What the jury think, what conclusion they arrive at, how they are to assess the damages, is really one of the most obscure matters that is to be found outside the more suspect texts of The Bible. I do not think, if you consider for a moment, that it is remotely possible to use the law of libel in a context where a plaintiff is called upon to give evidence and cannot give evidence except of the truth.
It is, I think, not that we are such purists and so dreadfully concerned about the possibility of telling a falsehood but that, if one starts to launch legal proceedings on the assumption that one has a licence for legalised falsehoods, the proceedings become an absolute nonsense, because it is only in that matter when a man is going to say something that is untrue that the provisions of the Bill will apply. I venture to suggest to the noble and "learned Lord, Lord Diplock—though he requires no praise from me; he gave us I a masterly dissertation on the law of libel—that what he has been trying to do is very kindly to throw a small sop in the direction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in the hope that by inserting this subsection we may find a quick way out of the problem.
If there is a quick way, it is the way provided by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in his later Amendment, which seeks to make it a criminal offence of a moderate character, subject to a moderate penalty, if a person infringes the Act. It seems to me that this is a much better and more effective way of doing this. What kind of deterrent it will be, I have no idea. A rich man would not be deterred at a smart dinner party from telling of an undisclosed previous conviction for some sexual offence of his closest friend by a threat that he would have to pay £100, but one cannot base the law on the activities of mischievous and wealthy people.
I think that there will be a deterrent in this suggestion, although I can see difficulties in the drafting. I see diffi-
1820
culties in the whole Bill, but it is infinitely better than an attempt to complicate the law of libel by for the first time ever and despite what was said by a noble Lord at an earlier stage of this Committee, authorising by an Act of Parliament a man to state categorically that a falsehood is true and a truth is falsehood. Only by Alice in Wonderland standards—or, indeed, by Alice Through the Looking Glass standards, more appropriately, because truth and falsehood are inverted—can one really accept that this is a proper way of dealing with the matter.
I have said some rather unkind words about the drafting of the Bill. I think that the reason why the drafting is so unintelligible is that the draftsmen have sought to achieve an impossible task, and I think that we should to-day review what is not really a crucial part of the Bill. The crucial part of the Bill is that we have recognised that after five years a man's conviction is erased and he can start again. That is the humanitarian result which will be achieved by the mammoth effqrts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and, if the Bill gets on to the Statute Book, it will stand to his credit for many generations, I do not think that, if we complicate the Bill by retaining this attempt to eliminate defamation, we shall do anything but create a situation in which the Bill is not passed.
9.17 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I have listened with my usual interest and attention to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but, as I listened, it occurred to me that we have not heard fall from his lips a single word relevant to this Amendment. I gather that the noble Lord is to disappear soon: he has taken the opportunity to make a Second Reading speech on the Bill and it had no relevance to the Amendment. Apparently, he is a supporter of the Amendment which is to be proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, but he will not wait to hear the argument about that. So, if I may say so with respect, while the noble Lord contributes greatly to the entertainment of this House, he has not on this occasion contributed to its usefulness.
I should like, with the greatest possible diffidence and hesitation, to attempt to make some reply to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock.

1821
I do so with the greatest diffidence, because I am a humble lay solicitor and he holds the position he does; but, if I understand the matter right, what we are discussing at the moment is whether the test—as to whether a person is justified in publishing to the world the facts of somebody's spent conviction—should be decided by considering if it is in the public interest to do it or by asking whether the person who published the facts was guided by malice. That, as I understand it, is substantially the difference between the words in the Bill and those of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
The first point that I should like to make about that matter is that I fear that the substitution of the test of malice or non-malice for the test of public interest weakens the protection afforded to the rehabilitated person. It weakens it for two reasons: first, that the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord throws on to the plaintiff, the complainant, the onus of proof that the publisher was acting with malice. As compared with the way in which this matter is presented in the Bill, that is shifting the burden of proof. Under the Bill if the publisher of the facts of a spent conviction is going to justify it he not only has to prove the truth of it but he has to go on and prove positively that the publication of it was in the public interest. Whether it be that he acted non-maliciously or in the public interest, I see no reason why the burden of proof should be thrown upon the plaintiff. Indeed, I would have thought that it was contrary to all the principles of the present law of defamation. If I have got this wrong I shall be corrected by the noble and learned Lord.
As I understand it, as the law of libel stands in this country at the moment, once you have proved or satisfied the judges that what was said was in fact defamatory, the burden of proving that the publisher of the defamatory statement had some excuse immediately passes to the person who made the publication. Whether or not the defence put up is a defence of justification, the burden of proving it was true passes to the defendant.
If the defence is one of fair comment in the public interest the burden of proving that passes to the defendant. If the
1822
defence is one of qualified privilege without malice the burden passes to the defendant. The noble Lord's Amendment proposes, as I understand it, that that basic principle in the law of evidence in libel and slander should now be turned on its head and the burden of proving malice I should be passed to the plaintiff. I suggest that if that happens the plaintiff in the great majority of cases will be put in an almost impossible position because he may not have available to him the material by which he could possibly prove that that is so.
I suggest that it is contrary to principle in this way: under our present laws of libel and slander the position we take is that if somebody publishes something which is defamatory he is doing something which is prima facie wrong. In this case, it should be up to him to produce a good explanation and excuse for what he has done. Under the Bill we are making it a prima facie wrong to publish facts about a rehabilitated person's spent conviction. If we are establishing that principle under the Bill, then if the publisher of the information about that spent conviction is going to try and justify it the onus of doing so should be upon him.
May I now go back to one sentence which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. He was arguing—and indeed in one sense this was argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock—that this defamation clause does not bite because there are so many cases where in practice it will not be of any avail to anybody who is injured by the publication of a spent conviction. That is perfectly true. Take the phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, used, I think, of the "two working class people". He said that in his experience when working class people get into a dispute they never bring an action for defamation against the other person. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said,
"You only bring an action for defamation if you are going against somebody who is not a man of straw."
There is one case in which quite clearly the Bill will bite and prevent this publication of people's previous spent convictions. That is the case of the newspaper, or any part of the media, which is considering whether it will publish a story about a man and refer to

1823
a conviction for something which happened many years ago, with the result that the publication of that matter to all the world may well break him, ruin his career, ruin his family and ruin all his family relationships. I suggest that in the case of any part of the media, particularly the newspapers, this defamation clause bites and will serve as a real deterrent. That, after all, is the object which we are seeking to achieve.
I now come back to the question as to whether the test of whether a man was justified in publishing particulars of a spent conviction should be that of malice or whether it should be the test of public interest. We have heard a great deal. We have heard to-day from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that one of the disadvantages of the test of the public interest is that it is a highly subjective concept and that it is very difficult for any newspaper editor and the like to tell in advance what a judge or a jury will decide—because I suppose that the question in this instance as to whether something is in the public interest is something that will be left to the jury. But whether it is a judge or a jury the argument is that it is very difficult for a newspaper editor, who is contemplating the publication of the facts of a spent conviction about somebody, to judge whether he will be able to raise successfully the defence of the public interest.
I will consider, if I may, the example of the newspaper editor who has a story about somebody who has suddenly been brought into public prominence for one reason or another. They have made an investigation of this man's history and found out that 20 years ago when a young man he was convicted of some offence. They are going to publish a story about that man, and the newspaper editor has to decide, "Am I to put that in or not?" It is a difficult matter for him to judge at that stage as to whether if he publishes that fact he will subsequently be able to satisfy a court that he was acting in the public interest. That is difficult, I concede, but is it any more difficult for him to make that judgment than to answer the question which is posed by the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, "If I publish this will the courts decide that I was acting maliciously or not?" Is
1824
that not just as difficult a judgment to make in a newspaper editor's office as is the judgment as to whether it is in the public interest?
I should have thought that, if the newspaper editor does publish something of that kind, and an action for defamation is brought against him, when he comes forward and attempts to rebut the allegation that he acted maliciously, he is almost bound to say, "No, I did not act maliciously because I acted in the public interest". I should have thought that in the vast majority of cases the only defence one could put forward to rebut the allegation of malice was that the publication was in the public interest.
Therefore, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment would not be effective in removing the concept of public interest from this argument. I will not weary the Committee any further with any comment upon paragraph (c), but comparable arguments to those which I have already sought to advance can be advanced there. Although the Amendments that are to be moved in due course by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to paragraph (c) are complicated in their verbiage, they are a much better solution of the problems of the authors, booksellers and librarians than the solution which is offered to us by the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
LORD GOODMAN: I wonder if I might, having stayed to hear the noble Lord's speech following his strictures, ask him a question. He is asserting that this action for defamation is of value against newspapers. Does he suggest that if a newspaper is able to say, as it is under this Bill, that a man is a rogue and a criminal and has a low character and rely under Clause 7 on the strong likelihood that the judge would allow the evidence to be admitted, because it is crucial to the question of truth, that that is of the slighest value to him in terms of defamation? It is only if he is founding his action on the single fact that there is the revelation of a spent conviction. In no other circumstances does Clause 8 apply. Under Clause 7 it is open to a newspaper to make any allegations it likes about a man's character and to seek to introduce the conviction, and they are not defaming under this Bill as now drawn.
LORD FOOT: I am glad I have never been in the position of being cross-examined by the noble Lord. If a newspaper were to publish an article saying that a man was a rogue and a scoundrel and he was then to sue them for defamation, they would be precluded from relying upon any evidence of a spent conviction to support their allegation that he was a rogue.
LORD GOODMAN: Under Clause 7 they are entitled to ask the judge to admit that as being relevant to the issue. I can think of few judges, if the man's character was at issue—as is crucial in defamation—who would not admit it.
LORD FOOT: Surely the allegation that a man is a rogue and a scoundrel goes very much farther than saying that he was convicted of some offence 20 years previously and has not been in any further trouble since. I do not understand what the difficulty is in the noble Lord's mind. If a person says, simply on the basis of a spent conviction of 20 years before, that a man is a rogue and a scoundrel to-day, I should have thought he had the clearest possible action for libel whether or not the judge allowed the evidence of the spent conviction to be admitted at his subsequent trial.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This Bill is complicated, and I wonder if I can make a short and simple point. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has pointed out that Clause 8 will either deter, in which case there will be no cause for anything to come to court at all, or else it will lead to a civil action. If it does that, it will be because somebody has worked his way through what is inevitably a complicated piece of drafting, and come to the conclusion that he has a legitimate cause for complaint. He will come to court. But he will not come to court in order to preserve the secrecy of his spent conviction. I do not understand how any action for defamation can get on its feet in those circumstances. He will come before the court in order to get damages because the deterrents will not have worked, and he will therefore have to have his recourse in law in terms of money.
The other day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, said that he was not in favour of licensed perjury in the criminal courts. I believe that this has
1826
now been struck out of the Bill. I consider that the question of onus of proof is crucial to the choice between the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the Bill as it stands. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said that it should be for the person who publishes to prove that the publication of the truth was also in the public interest. The Amendment says that the person who is complaining about he publication of the truth should also have to prove that the publication was done maliciously.
I hope that the Committee will not think that either the word "malice", as used here, or the words "public interest" mean what anybody ordinarily thinks. They are terms of art of the greatest subtlety and complexity and they do not mean the simple things that normal people believe. Therefore one does not think of nasty, viperous, slanderous, tittle-tattling people full of ill-will and malevolence. That is not the sole context of "malice". It is a good deal more complicated than that, and so is the public interest.
May I say to the Committee that if one is, as one is bound to be in an action for defamation under this clause, standing the truth on its head—saying that a past conviction is no past conviction and that somebody who says that it is a conviction ought to be required to pay damages for mentioning the fact—then, if we take any account of the history of the law of defamation and of the value of truth, it is for the person who wishes to say that the truth should not be told to do something in addition. What he must do under this Amendment is to say that the truth should not be told because there was an extra motive in telling it which was illegitimate. In the terms of the Amendment it was malicious, it was unnecessary, and it was something which should not be allowed. That is what he has to prove. He does not have to prove it according to a criminal standard of proof. He does not have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. He has simply to prove it so that on the balance of probabilities the person who published it did so without a reasonable cause for doing so.
If we are to abandon the truth in defamation, could we not also require the person who wishes so to abandon it

1827
to prove that small element? That is all that the Amendment of the noble Lord does and I think that it is a sensible way of dealing with it.
LORD GARDINER: Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 37, 38 and 39 deal with this point. so I trust that it will be in order if I address myself to them ail at the same time. This group of Amendments seeks to delete from the Bill the defence of public interest—that is, a complete defence for everybody—if what they publish was true and it was in the public interest that that truth should be known and to substitute for it a wholly new basis: that a plea of justification alone is a good defence unless the injured person also proves malice. I accept, of course. that the Amendment is well mentioned but my difficulties are these.
First, malice is not defined. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, rightly said on a former occasion on this Bill, our law of defamation is extremely complicated, and I think possibly the most complicated part is what "malice" means. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, had to go, owing to the lateness of the hour, because I know that this was a point with which he wanted to deal. There are innumerable cases as to the meaning of "malice". Gatly on Libel is the standard textbook. If you look at the index under "malice" you will find that there are 88 sub-headings. Twenty-seven of them alone are under the heading of "malice, evidence proving". Then there are about a dozen under the heading "malice, evidence not proving". There is no branch of the English law on defamation which has occasioned more difficulty than what is meant by "malice". Here in a new measure it is not defined at all. At present it may be one thing in the context of what is called a privileged occasion, and another in relation to fair comment, but there is no guide of any kind.
Of course, in the field of qualified privilege—that is to say, where A has an interest or is under a legal, moral or social duty to communicate something to B, who has a similar interest or duty to receive it—very often, in the end, it can be tested by whether the publisher has abused the occasion for which he was given the privilege. But of course news-
1828
papers have no privilege—they have the same right as you or I to say what they like, subject to the law.
I must say that I have not the faintest idea what would constitute malice and what would not. Take the simple case of a newspaper which publishes a 30 year-old conviction, not out of spite, not because it has a grudge against a person, not for an ill-will, but simply because it is thought that it will sell more copies of the newspaper if it is put in than if it is not. Is that malice? Newspapers have to make money; that is what they exist for. If they lose money they will not go on. But whether or not that would be malice appears impossible to decide.
On the other hand, so far as public interest is concerned, there we have in the field of Crown privilege the cases which tell us fairly clearly what "public interest" means and I would agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that that ought to be for the jury. It is, and always has been, a very troublesome question in the English law on defamation what "malice" means. Why should the onus be on the plaintiff? If the policy of the Bill is right, why should not the onus be on the man who wants to act contrary to that policy, and who alone knows what was in his mind when he published the matter complained of? It is always difficult for a plaintiff to prove malice, because the man who knows and can explain what his motive was in publishing it is solely the defendant.
I much enjoyed two Second Reading speeches, one from the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and one from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I have the highest regard for the Faulks Committee which has on it men of the highest distinction, many of whom are my personal friends. We have occasions on which we know when legislating that there is coming along behind some other piece of legislation. But we always take the view that we must deal with the legislation we have, and if and when other legislation comes along we shall deal with it. I cannot possibly subscribe to a proposition that a departmental committee which has not yet reported—we do not know exactly what they will say—is somehow to govern legislation which is now before Parliament.

1829
We are at the moment littered with reports which have never been carried out and some of us will look a little critically at the report when it comes from the Faulks Committee, not because they are not men of the highest probity and distinction, but simply because on the Committee on Defamation they include a well-known author, a highly reputable publisher, a well-known figure from the British Broadcasting Corporation, a solicitor who usually acts for publishers of books when they are said to have broken the law and not a single representative of the people who are said to be defamed.
LORD BALLANTRAE: I thought I was just the sort of chap who might well have been defamed.
LORD GARDINER: I have never followed the point made about the Bill not extending to someone who has not been convicted and it is very hard on him. For example, take the case of three men who commit the same crime: A is convicted, B is acquitted and C runs away. A is the only one of the three who has been punished and has done what he can to wipe away the offence, while B can go on saying that he was acquitted for the rest of his life. Why do we have to worry about C who has run away?
It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has not changed his view at all. The Committee will remember that on each occasion in two Parliaments that this Bil has been before the elected Chamber it was explained to them on Second Reading that the question of principle which had to be decided on Second Reading was whether the sanction should be via the law of defamation or by a criminal offence, or not. Eighteen months ago the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made it perfectly clear that he was against the principle of the Bill. He did not think it ought to be done via the law of defamation. This is what has always been called the principle of the Bill, very clearly explained in the last Parliament to the Commons by the then Minister of State in Mr. Heath's Government, explained again in this one and twice accepted by the elected Chamber.
May I just add this, because I think the Comimtte ought to bear it in mind. In 1843 this House appointed a Select
1830
Committee on the law of defamation. It was indeed a formidable Committee. Lord Campbell was the chairman. The members were Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord Chancellor; Lord Brougham and Vaux; Lord Denman, Chief Justice; Lord Abinger, Chief Baron; the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President and about 10 other noble Lords. I think perhaps they dealt with things a little more quickly in those days, because this was early in 1843: they were appointed on the 13th, named on the 14th and started taking evidence on the 15th. They took evidence from numerous newspapers. This went on for weeks, usually on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and then in June they published their Report. In their Report they said:
"The Committee think that the existing law is defective, in permitting Veritas Convicii"—
that is to say, the truth—
"by itself to be an absolute Bar to a Civil Action. They consider there are many Cases in which a Wrong may be maliciously done to an Individual for which a Remedy should be given by making public what may be proved to be true—as where the Imputation refers to some personal Defect, or an Error of Conduct long atoned for and forgotten—and that the Justification ought not to be complete without showing to the Satisfaction of a Jury that the Community had an Interest in the Truth being made known. This Qualification for the Defence in Civil Proceedings rests on the same Principle on which the Committee propose that the Veritas Convicii should be admitted as an Ingredient in the Defence upon Indictments or Informations for Libel."
In another paragraph they said—and here they were considering whether this would best be done by public interest or by malice—
"The Committee are of opinion that the Truth ought not to amount to an absolute Defence in a Criminal or Civil Proceeding for Libel, but that it ought to be received as an Ingredient in the Defence, to enable the Jury to determine whether upon the whole the Publication was justifiable. A Difficulty arises as to the Question to be submitted to the Jury beyond the Truth of the Imputation. Some Witnesses suggested that it should be the Motive of the Defendant, but the just Consideration seems to be, whether the Public have an interest in the Truth being made known to them. It is only in such a Case that private Offences ought to be made the Subject of public Comment, and in such a Case, for the Good of the Community, the Publication must be tolerated, though prompted by Spite. The Committee think that admitting Evidence of the Truth under this Limitation Will remove a Scandal from the Administration of Justice,"

1831
On introducing the Report the chairman, Lord Campbell, said, on June 1, at column 1230:
"Errors may have been committed by a party, and may have been long atoned for and forgiven. It seemed a reproach to the administration of justice that in such cases a man's forgotten misconduct, or the misconduct of a relation, in which the public had no interest, should be wantonly raked up, and published to the world, on the ground of its being true. A great wrong here was committed, and no remedy was obtained."
Shortly afterwards the Bill was introduced in this House, and the first of its two most important clauses was a clause which provided that in criminal libel the truth should be no defence unless the defendant also proved that the publication was in the public interest. The other clause was that in civil proceedings the position should be exactly the same. Both clauses were accepted by the House of Lords. When that went to the House of Commons, while they accepted what had been proposed in relation to criminal libel, there were objections to the clause applying to civil libel. There was a Division.
LORD DIPLOCK: I thought my noble and learned friend gave the impression that when the law was changed in 1843 by Lord Campbell's Act it was in order to take away or to add to the necessity of proving public interest as well as truth. What happened, in fact, was that truth was not a defence to the law of criminal libel at all before then, and the change made in the law was that truth was made a defence if it was also proven to be for the public benefit.
LORD GARDINER: That is quite right; truth had not been a defence, but what they were proposing and put forward in the Bill were these two clauses to provide both in civil action and in criminal action in future that you could prove the truth but only subject to your also proving that the publication was for the public benefit.
When that went to the Commons, as I was saying, there were some objections so far as civil cases were concerned. On the Question, That the clause stand part?, there voted Contents, 30, Not-Contents, 38. It was because of this majority of eight that English law went wrong. When the Bill came back to this House, Lord
1832
Campbell was annoyed. He pointed out how illogical it was that if a thing was a criminal offence the injured party should have no right to claim damages for the wrong done to him. He said:
"Another important clause had been rejected—that which allowed the truth to be pleaded in certain cases in civil actions, by which, he thought, the law was made more inconsistent than at present. It took away from the civil action all remedy, if the words were proved to be true. As the law now stands the truth of libel is an absolute bar against the civil remedy. The Veritas convici, absolved the parties from defamation. That, too, was I peculiar to the law of England. It was not known in the law of Scotland nor in the law of France. nor he believed in the law of any part of Europe. It was monstrous that it was so. What right had any man to publish the infirmities of another, or the youthful error which might have been forgotten and atoned for, or some misfortune of his family for which he was not responsible? Egregious wrong might be done in this way, it was manifest, and great pain inflicted on an individual, without any benefit to the public or anybody. Now, if the Commons were of opinion that to publish truth of this nature ought to be punished criminally, being wrong, why should not the individual who suffered, have his remedy by-civil action? Where there was a wrong, there was also a remedy, was the maxim of the law of England, and accordingly a clause had been inserted in the bill, enacting that the truth should not be an absolute bar in civil actions, unless the defendant could make out that it was published for the public benefit. That clause had been rejected by the House of Commons; and they left on the bill this strange anomaly, that truth was not to be an absolute bar, but only sub modo, in criminal proceedings … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, August 22, 1843, col 992.]
He then pointed out that as it was now August 22, he advised them to accept the Commons Amendment because otherwise the Bill would have been lost.
To-day we are in a strange position because it is the elected Chamber which on two occasions has accepted the principle of the Bill and has put into it the defence of common interest. It is from this House really that the objections now come. I should just add that not only has the principle of the Bill, namely, the defamation clause, and the defence of public interest been accepted by the elected Chamber, but that although given the Second Reading without a Division, on the Committee stage of the Bill there was one man who said that he himself was against the principle of the Bill. He divided the Committee and was the only Member to vote against the Amendment on that Division.

1833
I have only to add that it was three years after the Bill to which I have referred that most of the Australian States said that the House of Lords Select Committee were right and they then provided that in civil actions the truth should be no defence unless the defendant also proved that the publication was for the public benefit. I think that no practical difficulty arises in the action. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, knows, "falsely and maliciously" is a survival of an old form, and means nothing. Indeed, one of the two leading criminal chambers has not put it in for years. In libel, the defamation proceedings, the words complained of are assumed to be untrue, and the burden is on the defendant, if he wishes, to prove they are true. Therefore, the defendant would have to prove the truth and that what he was publishing was in the public interest. In this alternative clause we have to prove malice. I would hope the Committee would reject this Amendment, but no doubt the Committee would wish to hear what is the Government's view on this Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Before we hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this, may I say a few words in answer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He began by attacking the noble Lords, Lord Ballantrae and Lord Goodman.
LORD GARDINER: With great respect, I did not attack the noble Lords at all.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was about to go on to say what I thought was the attack, but if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, objects to the word "attack", I do not mind. However, he said on the Committee stage that the noble Lords had made Second Reading speeches, and if that is not a criticism or attack, I do not know what it is. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made a speech almost as long as that which he made on the Second Reading of the Bill. He went in to a great many matters which were really unrelated to this Amendment. The noble Lord. Lord Foot, went into a great many matters of detail.
At this time, I do not propose to speak for any length on this Amendment. The reasons for it have been deployed in a
1834
masterly speech by my noble and learned I friend, Lord Diplock. This is an important Amendment, it is true, and in judging of this Amendment, what was said in reports of over 100 years ago I suggest is quite irrelevant. I am not going into past history of what happened, in 1848 in regard to criminal libel and Lord Campbell's Act. We have to consider what goes into the Bill. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, says repeatedly that the principle of the Bill lies in this defamation clause, I venture to cast in his teeth the words that he used in relation to an earlier Amendment ' when he said, and I think I am quoting his language correctly:
"the guts of the Bill are in this clause".
I support the object of the Bill. I do not regard the principle of the Bill as being embodied in this clause or any part of it. The object of the Bill and all the earlier parts of the Bill is to provide that convictions can be spent. It is a complete misuse of language from noble Lords to talk about rehabilitation, because one does not become rehabilitated by the conviction being spent. What happens—and what one wants—is to remove from individuals the risk of their past—which has been lived down—being brought to light years later, and their suffering injury to their reputation and in their life on that account. That is the principle of the Bill. All the rest is machinery. It is no use the noble and learned Lord going on emphasising that defamation is the principle of the Bill. It is part of the machinery. We want to try to make the machinery as good as it can be made.
In relation to that machinery, this is a most important Amendment. It has been criticised in various respects. I do not intend to deal in any detail with the criticism, because I feel the Committee would like at this late hour to come to a decision without much further debate. However, the first criticism made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is that malice is not defined, nor is it in the Bill. He says there is much about malice in the textbooks. Of course there is. He did not refer to a recent decision of this House in its judicial capacity which, I think, threw, at least I hope it did, a considerable light on the extent of the meaning of that term of art. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of

1835
Culross, said, it is not just spite and malice and ill will; it goes beyond that.
I think it is fairly clearly established now that, if you take an improper advantage of the occasion, in publishing something defamatory, that is malicious. If, therefore, some newspaper gratuitously publishes defamatory matter about a person's private life—and one sees instances of that now and then in newspapers in which one would not expect to see it, where it appears to be completely gratuitous—I would have thought from the very nature of the article there would be no difficulty at all in the plaintiff in an action establishing on the balance of probabilities that that was malicious.
I do not really think that there is much in that first point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, about malice not being defined. He says that in no branch of the law of libel has there been more difficulty. There has been no difficulty, so far as I am aware, in the proof of malice under the Law of Libel Act which was passed in 1888.
Then he says with regard to public interest, "Oh, that is quite easy; there are cases on that, Crown Privilege cases". I venture to suggest that public interest is a phrase the content of which depends very much indeed on the context in which it is used, and I cannot conceive that what is said with regard to the public interest of protecting something from publication for the purposes of Crown Privilege has really any relation to this. A difficulty I see about public interest is that it is a I very vague and indefinite term. A difficulty I see, too, is if you get a book which does not come within the very narrow definition of subsection (5)(b), the difficulty of an author showing that a I book is written quite seriously, how it can be established, and if the onus is on him to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has made references to the distinction—and it is quite true—of the Committee on Libel, the distinguished members of it. He has not said that he has consulted them about this clause in this Bill. But I think my noble and learned friend and I are aware, from what the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, has said, what are the views of that Committee. It was not so I very many years ago, and the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, will recollect it, that I
1836
had the temerity to move 27 Amendments to a Bill drafted by a Committee composed of very eminent and distinguished lawyers.
I drew on my head a tirade from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He reminded me of the distinction of the members of that committee, and then he said he thought it was a very brave thing to say on 25 different Amendments "I know better than them". I should add that when it came to Report stage he himself tabled 37 Amendments, but that is by the way. Here the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is really being much braver; he pays tribute to the distinction of these hardworking members, but what is he doing? Have they been consulted about the terms of this Bill? Do they agree with this clause? The answer is clearly, no. He is pre-empting their conclusion. He is ignoring them.
One reason why I feel that this is wrong is because it is difficult enough in all conscience for a Lord Chancellor to get eminent and distinguished and busy men to serve on committees of this sort and give up a lot of time voluntarily to do that kind of work, but then to say, "Oh, well, we are going to do this in this Bill without regard to your views; we are going to ignore them; we are not even going to ask you for your views", is indeed not only a brave but, I would suggest, a very wrong thing to do.
May I come back shortly to this Amendment. I suggest to the Committee, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, that this really will be an improvement to the Bill. It will make it simpler and more effective. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, knows, and also my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock as well, I have worked long hours this week, and sometimes very early hours, in trying to remove what I think the right reverend Prelate called the "warts on the Bill". I think that the right reverend Prelate described the provision for lying on oath as a wart on the Bill.
I think that we have met with considerable success. This is the last real difficulty, but it is an important one. If this Amendment is accepted or carried, I can say for myself that I should certainly not vote for this clause being left out, despite the persuasive eloquence of the noble

1837
Lord, Lord Goodman, who nearly convinced me that that would be the better course. It may be, but I should like to see what happens to this Amendment. If this Amendment is carried, I must say that I cannot see that there will be really any difficulty in this Bill concluding its passage through this House this week with the knowledge that I have, thanks to the kindness of the Lord Chancellor and his officials, of the Amendments that it is proposed to table at Report stage. If this Amendment is not carried, despite the work that I and my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock have done to remove the warts on the Bill, I think that it would be better that the Bill should not pass this Session, that this matter should be looked into again, and the Committee on Libel consulted about it before this Bill—which, in the opinion of many, and not cast of the Law Society, and they are not speaking on their own behalf, would be a blot on the Statute Book—goes on the Statute Book.
Is there such great urgency? We heard that a million people are at risk. There must be very few cases in the course of any year where that risk fructifies. I want to see that risk removed, but if we are going to remove it let us do the job properly, and not as is proposed by the subsection which this Amendment proposes to leave out.
10.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, said that this Bill has crept up on us almost unnoticed. It seems to have been creeping up on me for a very long time; first in another place, where we debated it, and here we are confronted with it now. Parliament has been giving thought to this for a very long time indeed, and I should have thought that it is now appropriate for Parliament to begin to make up its mind upon it.
Amendments Nos. 34, 37, and 38, which were so seductively moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, on the face of it attracted me very much. Their simplicity is attractive, and if I could have found the Amendments acceptable they would have eliminated the difficulties which undoubtedly are involved in dealing with the problems created by the need to protect librarians and others which I and those assisting me
1838
have endeavoured to deal with in out Amendments, Amendments which, as we shall see, are certainly complex and somewhat lengthy, but with patience and sympathetic understanding they do, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, deal with that aspect of the problem.
But the difficulty which I find about the Amendments which have been moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is that in my view they would create unacceptable problems in practice. In addition to that they would create a problem of principle which I shall endeavour to deal with in a moment. I believe that the practical problem will arise because there is no certain test by which to decide whether on any given occasion a true statement was properly published.
As I understand it—and it is a difficult field—the essence of malice as the term is used in the law of defamation is that the defendant has to take advantage of the occasion of publication to use it for some improper purpose. In considering whether a true statement has been maliciously published the court will have to consider whether the defendant improperly used it, and used that occasion, for some ulterior purpose. In my view that test is a very uncertain one, a test which is difficult to apply. In this regard I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. In my view it is a more uncertain and more difficult test to apply than the test of public interest. That is a test which the courts have applied. There is case law in our own country with regard to it.
I remember all too vividly, after endeavouring to sustain the Crown privilege in the Conway v. Rimmer case in the House of Lords sitting judicially, the careful consideration and judgment that was given there to the concept and the balance of public interest. I find myself, I regret to say, in disagreement with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his assessment of the comparative difficulties. In my submission, the assessment of the public interest which subsection (5) now contains, is one which is comprehensible and which a jury would have no difficulty in coming to grips with.
But apart from uncertainty in the courts, I submit that the Amendment has

1839
drawbacks for the parties. It places on the plaintiff a burden which I think he will find it hard, indeed almost impossible, to discharge. He will not often have direct evidence of ill-will on the part of the defendant. He will hardly be so foolish as to give him that evidence. Nor if the matter published is worded with any care will it be possible to spell out evidence of malice by reference to the words used. In most cases the plaintiff would be forced to rely on the argument that there was no occasion to justify publishing the statement complained of and he would have little material on which to base such arguments.
But the fundamental reason why, in my view, this Amendment is unacceptable is that, despite the words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I think it does, and will in practice, interfere with the purposes of the Bill in a very real sense. In the Bill, Parliament states that it is in the public interest that rehabilitated persons should be allowed to live down their convictions. That is the heart of this Bill; that is the guts of the Bill, if I may use that expression—that it is unjust, that it is anti-social, that persons who have lived down their convictions should not be able to benefit from that fact. It goes to the root of the encouragement of rehabilitation in our community. There is a considerable public interest, therefore, in the maintenance of the principle that those who have lived down their convictions should be entitled to lead their future lives without prejudice, without harassment, without disaster, by a belated, unreasonable and unjustified disclosure.
The only excuse for publication of a spent conviction that can properly be set against that public interest which Parliament has so clearly favoured is another, possibly greater public interest. In my submission, it is not enough, as the Amendment states, to say that publication is to be allowed if it is not malicious. Further, it would not in my view be enough to accept the general approach of the Amendment but to alter the onus of proof of malice and make the defendant disprove malice. The mere fact that the publisher of the fact of the spent conviction bore no ill to the victim of the publication is not strong enough a reason for removing the protection which the
1840
Bill seeks to confer on rehabilitated persons.
In my submission, the defendant's state of mind is really not the right test to I apply. If the principle of the Bill is applied in the way I submit it should be applied, a statement concerning a spent conviction should not be published unless there is a good reason to do so. It may well be a good reason that publication in a given case is in the public interest; but, in my submission, it is not satisfactory that the test should relate to the defendant's motives in making the statement.
Perhaps I can give an example. Two newspapers independently publish reports concerning a man who is a candidate for some office of high public trust. Both report the fact that he has had a conviction, now spent, which makes him in that publicity unsuitable to hold that office. One of the reporters was malicious, and published the report simply to injure the candidate. The other was not malicious, and published the report because he thought it was his duty to inform the public. In both cases, so far as the rehabilitated person is concerned, the mischief is precisely the same: a statement about his spent conviction has been published. In both cases the question whether there should be a remedy should have the same answer, and the answer turns on the policy of this Bill.
The policy of this Bill has now been propounded. Everyone who speaks says that they support the policy of the Bill. If the public interest test is applied, the answer would be the same in both cases and would turn on the decision where the higher public interest lay—in revealing or concealing the spent conviction. But if the test proposed in this Amendment were applied, the answers would differ. Against the malicious reporter there would be a remedy: against the other there would not, although the victim would suffer similarly in both cases.
I regret, therefore, that, quite apart I from the complications which would arise as a result of Amendment No. 35 in the field of fair comment, with the introduction of yet another concept of malice into the morass of legal difficulty which is involved in the law relating I to malice, the practical problems which would be created in the field of fair comment, would, in my submission—attractive as the Amendment is, and

1841
clearly as I appreciate the sincerity of the effort to live with the principle within the law of defamation—make the Amendment unacceptable.
LORD DIPLOCK: I will not detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two. The point involved in the Amendment is whether one should employ a concept which has been used in this context in the law of libel—that of malice or taking improper advantage of the occasion—and used successfully since 1888, so successfully that Parliament in 1932 extended it further and it has caused no difficulties. The proposal is to substitute public interest. I have asked in vain whether public interest is a question of law for the judge or a question of fact for the jury. If the model used by my noble and learned friend is the model of 1843—Lord Campbell's model—it is a question of fact for the jury. The other difficulty about the public interest is that it is an expression whose meaning will vary very much with its context, and nobody knows what meaning will be attached to it in a wholly new context. The context in which it is used is whether a particular subject matter is one of public interest. That causes difficulty enough, but now
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
we are seeking to apply that chameleonlike phrase in a wholly different context, and all that that can do can add uncertainty to what is already an uncertain branch of the law, instead of the comparative certainty available by using a well-known concept which has been used for many years.
As to the question of burden of proof, I hold an open mind about that. In all other cases, the burden of proving malice lies, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, upon the person alleging the malice, and, as I say, that seems to have worked quite well in the past in this sort of context. However, I have an open mind upon that question and that could be put right upon Report. I should be only too happy to have discussions. There are certain technical implications which I should like to consider further and which could readily be put right on Report. I recognise the force of what has been said about the Amendment.
10.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Balerno, L.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Berkeley, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gage, V.

Salisbury, M.

Chelwood, L.

Goodman, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gowrie, E.

Sandys, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hartwell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selsdon, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Inglewood, L.

Sharpies, B.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Snow, L.

Diplock, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Wigg, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Castle, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Segal, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stamp, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L.

Longford, E.

Wigoder, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

10.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 34G. This is consequential on the acceptance by the Committee of Amendment No. 26 on July 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, after ("action") insert ("where the matter complained of includes any expression of opinion").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIPLOCK: This Amendment is exactly comparable to that on which there has been a Division. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 11. line 41, leave out from ("above") to end of line 57 and insert:
("be entitled for the purpose of establishing the defence of fair comment, to rely upon the truth of any facts alleged or referred to in the matter complained of if the publication of such matter is proved to have been made with malice.")—(Lord Diplock.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 35A. This is also consequential on an earlier Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 42, leave out from ("any") to ("complained") and insert ("fact imputed by the matter").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential, in similar circumstances. I beg to move Amendment No. 35B.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 45, leave out from ("the") to ("was") in line 46 and insert ("fact in question").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 35C. This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved
Page 11, line 48, leave out ("words were") and insert ("matter complained of was")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 36A:
1844
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("words") and insert ("matter")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 7, leave out from ("proceedings") to end of line 12, and insert:
("if it is proved that the publication was not contemporaneous with the proceedings and either

(a) was made with malice; or

(b) contained a reference to evidence which was ruled to be inadmissable in the proceedings by virtue of Section 4 above").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is the third of the batch which we dealt with in Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 26, leave out subsection (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential upon the Amendments to the earlier clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (10).
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is also, consequential upon the Amendment which has been carried. It contains the definition of "document", etc., which I do not think is necessary now. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I make one comment on the Question, That this clause stand part? I put down Amendment No. 41 as a long stop in case the Amendments that we have just voted on were not accepted. I do not think that I really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that a criminal sanction is right, but I was determined that we should not have the wrong civil law sanction. That is the explanation for it. It is not a violent recantation on my part.
LORD DIPLOCK: I am not sure that an intolerable criminal sanction would not have been a far worse public mischief?
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: I do not propose to cast a vote about this clause because, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, it has been vastly improved by the Amendment which your Lordships have just made. However, I should like to deal with what we are still doing, which is to vote on a clause relating to defamation in advance of the recommendations of a committee which has been set up to examine the law of defamation. I cannot help feeling that to take that course is a very severe setback to the cause of law reform, which has been so prominent and which has been so successfully achieved under recent successive Administrations.
It seems to me, although this clause is improved, and although a Member of your Lordships' House who is a member of the Faulks Committee seemed content with the clause as amended, that it is contrary to every interest of law reform based on the setting up of departmental committees, calling on busy men to sacrifice their time and bring their mature judgments to a problem, that one should not have the patience to await what they have to say. Already in the interim report which they have issued they have shown that they desire to have their views weighed on this matter. Although, as I say, I do not propose to vote against this Motion, I would ask the noble and learned Lord who is in charge of the Bill to consider very seriously what we are doing to set back the cause of law reform in a sphere where reform is urgently called for. If we insult committees by pre-empting their judgments on the eve of judgment, it will, as my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said, with the experience he has had on the Woolsack, be extremely difficult to get people to serve and sacrifice their time and leisure and give their counsel on matters on which we desire to call on their judgment.
The other matter which I should like to mention is the drafting of this clause, and indeed the drafting of the rest of the Bill. It has been greatly simplified by the Amendment that has been carried, but, nevertheless, it remains true that this clause, like the rest of the Bill, is what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in
1846
supporting the Second Reading, called "a layman's nightmare". The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to it as "lamentable drafting". It seems to me that we are doing a very ill service, not only to the cause of law reform generally, but to the simple drafting of Statutes—I know that the noble and learned Lord has that very much at heart, because he gave evidence, as I did, to the Renton Committee—in putting forward a measure as complicated as this, the object of which could be achieved with far greater simplicity. So that although I am not now prepared to cast a vote against this clause, I demur to the pre-emption of the views of the Faulks Committee. I have grave reservavations about the drafting of the clause.
The views of the Society of Authors and of the Publishers' Association have not really been taken into account. They have made quite plain that they are very anxious about this clause. They are not unenlightened men, they are not un-influential men. If we, who have the cause of penal reform and law reform at heart, alienate so articulate a section of the community, we shall do this cause considerable damage. I can well conceive, with the noble and learned Lord in his Lady Chatterley mood, the roll of institutions that he would enunciate who have expressed their anxiety about this clause; the famous names from letters and law who have submitted a view. Certainly I would never attempt to emulate him, but I know that before parting from this clause your Lordships will wish to consider the damage that has been done to law reform generally by the way the Faulks Committe has been treated, the blow that has been struck at improvement by way of simplieation of drafting, and the damage that has been done to penal reform by alienating an influential and enlightened part of the population.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
10.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given notice of his intention to move:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause—
Unlawful discrimination as to employment
(". It shall be unlawful for an employer or any person concerned with the employment of others to discriminate against any other person

1847

(a) if that other person is seeking employment by refusing or deliberately omitting to employ him on work of any description which is available; or

(b) if that other person is employed on work of any description, by dismissing him in circumstances in which other persons employed on work of that description by the employer are not or would not be dismissed,

on account of a conviction for an offence (other than a sexual offence) which is spent by virtue of this Act.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: May I just say a word about this new clause which is in my name. I have never been entirely satisfied that the law of defamation is the proper safeguard for those who may be damaged on account of a spent conviction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention—I think it was on the Second Reading of the Bill, the first time round—to the fact that a man might not get employment, or might get the sack on account of a spent conviction, and that was wrong; and also to the question of insurance policies being invalidated, and I thought that positive clauses would improve this Bill.
I have since had the advantage of seeing a number of Government officials and seeing some Amendments which it is proposed to table at the Report stage. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for enabling me to have consultations with them. I should like to express my thanks to them for their efforts, and to congratulate them on what must have been a very difficult drafting task which they have accomplished in a very short space of time, with a clarity of drafting which I think is a model for this Bill and many others, and I hope the House will agree with me when they see it. It deals with it far better than I dealt with it in my two clauses, which were drafted in a considerable hurry and were defective in some respect, I readily admit. Having had the advantage of seeing these new drafts which have already been tabled, there is no need for me to move either of these new clauses. But I wanted to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to those concerned for relieving me of that burden, and I believe that those Amendments will make a very significant improvement to the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I express my gratitude on behalf of my own Department for those generous words which have fallen from the noble and learned Lord? If I may say so he, from long experience, knows the quality of those who are assisting Lord Chancellors, and they will be very grateful. I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we have paid very careful regard to the representations that were made, and in my Department we have struggled to try to deal, within the context of the Bill, with some of the important public issues that were raised. The matter has developed in a somewhat piecemeal way with various Departments expressing a view upon one aspect or another, and I should not like the chastisement of the draftsmen to pass without some attempt at any rate to explain that it is this piecemeal process which has made the drafting so very difficult. I should not like the draftsmen to feel affronted or hurt by what has been said in your Lordships' House.
LORD DIPLOCK: I wonder whether I may just add that when we were debating Clause 7 (4) and (5), at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that discussion was postponed until we had discussed these new clauses. May I add to the mutual self-congratulations which are going round, by saying that what I understand are likely to be the Government Amendments will solve my problems, too.
Clause 9 [Unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions]:
10.50 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 44.
Page 13, line 26, leave out ("tending to show") and insert ("imputing")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, I think corresponding to one made at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 13, line 28, after ("rehabilitated") insert ("living").
The noble Viscount said: There has been a certain amount of dismay about Clause 9. It comes mainly from the justices' clerks, and from the people in local government who keep records. Perhaps I can come back to this in a moment. But one thing of entirely my own invention is a point I made on Second Reading, that whereas under Clause 8 one cannot get into trouble under the law of defamation when the person concerned is dead, because one cannot bring actions for defamation, as I understand it, when the victim is dead—this is very difficult anyway—there is no such curb on prosecutions being made under Clause 9. As I understand it, this would mean, in practice that people who were doing genuine historical research would be greatly inhibited because no one who has public records would be prepared to allow them to be looked at because he may be prosecuted.
I had a very interesting letter from the friend of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who was doing the job while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was in Northern Ireland, whereby I was told that this was perfectly all right because the Director of Public Prosecutions had to consent to any prosecution under Clause 9(8). So everybody could be perfectly reassured that the Director of Public Prosecutions would never allow anyone to be prosecuted who disclosed information from records about people who were dead. But I have never known it to be a tenet of legislation that that on the basis of a single letter passing between two private individuals, one a Member of this House, all those for ever after in charge of public records may be perfectly assured that they are completely safe from prosecution. I would suggest to the Committee we ought to make this plain in the Bill.
If the Director of Public Prosecutions does not propose to consent to any prosecution for disclosure of information about a dead person, there is no harm, I hope, in putting it in. It may come into a category where we have already by Amendment accepted that it is harmless and adds nothing to the Bill. But these are Amendments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner is prepared to accept, and I should have thought it would have set at rest the minds of many who keep public records, who get genuine
1850
requests from people writing books or other historical material, and who would like to be able to disclose this material without it doing any harm any more. They will not know whether they can safely do so, because under the terms of the Bill as it stands they might be prosecuted. Therefore, as we are all at one that it is not intended that they should be prosecuted, let us write it into the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I suggest that the reason for this Amendment is unnecessary. On the other hand, I cannot see that it can do any real harm, and therefore I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, or possibly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, could help on this question of the official keepers of records. I did pass to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the other day a couple of letters from worried people in the magistrates' clerks' world and also the local authority world, who wanted, I am perfectly certain, to stick to the rules the Bill is laying down, but who found that the concept of what was "in the course of their official duties" —to quote from subsection (2)—was a rather vague concept. They wanted to be able to make proper disclosure where this was intended. They also wanted to be able to avoid being taken (I do not know which bench you would take a justices clerk in front of) and prosecuted if they made a mistake.
We do not know at this stage what orders are to be made under Clause 5, nor what they all are; we have an indication of what some may be. I think there is a certain amount of reassurance which is due. What has happened is that people have woken up to the implications of this Bill rather late in its Parliamentary progress. The reasons for this I know not. They have now extreme worries. They are people of the highest repute and integrity. They deserve reassurance and, with the notice I have given, I think there is a reasonable chance that one or other of the Government spokesmen will be able to give it.

1851
One of these days they will be able to read it. Meanwhile, I could perhaps go so far as to convey the gist of what was said to those who have corresponded with me. Any help will be gratefully received.
LORD HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Viscount passed to me the letters he has referred to, and indeed the Home Office have received representations from justices' clerks and from a number of other individuals and organisations.
In the hope, in which I join the noble Viscount, that Hansard will appear in some year or decade later, let me for that happy moment say a few reassuring things. First, the clause has in fact been deliberately drawn in such terms so as not to catch the routine and necessary exchange of information by public officials, be they policemen, court officials, social workers and so on. That is the object and I hope we have succeeded; certainly that was our intention. Secondly, it has been drafted to ensure that those who act in good faith in disclosing information about spent convictions in the course of their official duties do not risk prosecution. And the third is the longstop to which the noble Viscount has referred; namely, that only the Director may bring proceedings. This will, I think, ensure that public officials can be reassured that there is no serious risk of frivolous prosecutions being brought against them. I hope they will be reassured by those few words.
LORD SIMON of GLAISDALE: May I ask a question on subsection (5) of this clause, as to what sort of situations it is designed for?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: I know some of them because I used to answer on this subject before. One of the things was that people compiling social inquiry reports were allowed to put in details of people's convictions even if they were spent; that includes, for instance, mental health and things of that sort. We were also going to allow compilation of lists by the Department of Education and Science of people convicted of offences against children and not to be employed in schools. I can-
1852
not remember any others, but they were things of that sort, where there would obviously have to be exemption from disclosure provisions, and some of which we had identified when the Bill was given its first run through this House.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Title shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: May I make one very rapid and final apology? I think that it is unlikely that I shall be here on Friday on account of a professional engagement. Will noble Lords who have suffered my interventions in silence and resignation please forgive me. No discourtesy is intended, but it is unlikely that I shall be able to get back.
On Question, Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Third Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Sixth Report from the Select Committee made on Council Directive on Forestry Measures (R/599/74); the said Report to be printed.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Sixteenth Report made on the following Instrument which requires affirmative approval:
Draft Calculation of Redundancy Payments Order 1974; the said Report to be printed.