Lords Sitting of 22 July 1977

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: the CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS: ADVERTISEMENT COSTS
Lord WYNNE-JONES: 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 regard it as prohibitively expensive for a Ministry to ascertain the cost of a defined advertisement in a national newspaper.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): No, my Lords. There should be no difficulty in obtaining the cost of a single advertisement, but the Question which my noble friend Lord Vaizey asked me on 14th July related to 27 advertisements placed by 19 universities and polytechnics, dealing with a large number of postgraduate courses and research projects for which they are individually responsible.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that it took me exactly 10 seconds on the telephone to find out from the Guardian its rate per column centimetre? It is £11 per column centimetre. Is he further aware that it took me about five minutes, with the little pocket instrument which one carries about, which is graduated in centimetres, to find that on the day in question there were approximately 135 column centimetres of advertisements which were referred to in the Question? I have done a calculation without a slide rule, and I reckon that that works out at approximately £1,485 for the advertisements on that day. Altogether it did not take me more than 10 minutes—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord WYNNE-JONES: Does my noble friend agree that such calculations can easily be done, and will he confirm what he said previously—namely, that it is not unreasonable for universities to spend such a relatively small sum of money in advertising important fellowships?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I agree at once, without further argument, with the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question. We take the view that sponsoring by the Science Research Council of various courses and research work by a number of scientific instititions is very valuable, and we are perfectly aware of the fact that the institutions cannot get the best people to benefit without advertising for them. With regard to the research work which my noble friend has put in, we have to ask ourselves whether it would be useful, and how often it would be useful, to employ fairly highly paid civil servants on this work. If my noble friend is willing to do it voluntarily, it would probably he more to everybody's benefit than if we set the troops on to it.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, while his duty is manfully to defend the tongue that Shakespeare spoke, and the faith and morals which Milton held, and the beauties of Turner and the beauties of Constable, this is also the blessed isle over which the Lord said, "Let Newton be!", and all was light? Will he also bear in mind that the effect of this particular Question as it is phrased, being read in Hansard in Houston, Texas, might conceivably weaken the NATO alliance?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am a little unclear as to the drift of my noble friend's question, but I feel sure the answer is that I do not think he need worry.

AERIAL CROP SPRAYING: BRANSTON INCIDENT
11.9 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government under what conditions aerial crop spraying is authorised, what are the restrictions against dangers and whether they can now explain why, on 14th July, children in their playground at Branston, near Lincoln, were endangered first by a low flying aeroplane and secondly by toxic spray.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, aerial crop-spraying is authorised by permissions issued by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Air Navigation Order. Operators are required to conduct their activities in accordance with requirements published by the Authority. Only chemicals cleared for aerial application under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme may be used. The incident involving school children at Branston on 13th July is being investigated by the police. As these inquiries may disclose an offence, the House will not expect me to say more about that incident at this stage.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend most sincerely for that helpful, clear Answer, and I have no desire whatever to exaggerate the incident. Will he consider checking on the materials used in the spraying, particularly where, as in this case, it is carried out by a private contractor?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly the chemicals are closely supervised, as my original Answer indicated. They are cleared under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, and these chemicals are constantly given the attention of the experts.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say how many children were harmed in this incident?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I saw a report in the Press that 50 children, though not harmed, were taken to hospital for precautionary examination, but the facts have not yet been established; this is the point of the police inquiry. So I should not wish to be categorical about any of the facts.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say Whether the operators of these spraying flights are required to notify people in the area that they intend to carry out aerial spraying, so that people can take precautions if they wish to do so?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; there is a requirement that, wherever practicable, prior warning should be given to those people living in the immediate vicinity of the area to be sprayed. Moreover, the local police should also be informed.

NORTHERN REGION: CABINET REPRESENTATION
11.12 a.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that there are Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, it would not be appropriate to have a Secretary of State for the Northern Region.
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that most unsatisfactory reply. May I ask whether she is aware of the advantages that accrued to both Scotland and Wales through having a Cabinet Minister both for Scotland and for Wales?—a move which I supported. Is the noble Baroness aware that, whatever anybody else thinks, I think that it is about time there was somebody in the Cabinet who could argue for the region which I had the honour to represent and have represented for so many years?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we all know and admire the great enthusiasm of the noble Baroness for the area that she used to represent but we are not convinced that there is a need for a Cabinet Minister to cover every region. We accept that there is a need for close liaison between Departments and for

615
good links with the relevant regional organisations, but we do not believe that there is a need for a Secretary of State or a Cabinet Minister.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that, so long as the noble Baroness from North Tyne-side is with us, a Cabinet Minister would be redundant?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was wondering whether if it ever came to it, we should suggest the noble Baroness for the post.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, while we appreciate that it is not possible to do what is asked in the Question, can we be assured that the Government are going to continue their policy of helping the North-East—as they have done so well in the past—over the difficulty that is arising in consequence of the Reyrolle Parsons affair, and that they will pay close attention to trying to avoid any further increase in unemployment in the region?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right. The Government have done a lot for the assisted areas and will continue to do so.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that if the Old Kingdom were revived it would be quite appropriate that Scotland should be included among the responsibilities of a Secretary of State for the North?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that is a matter that we ought to leave for more discussion on devolution.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether we in this House are expected to sit as representatives of any region?

DIOXIN: CONTROL OF USE
11.17 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now studied the report of the expanding disaster consequent on the emission of toxic gas from the ECMISA plant at Seveso in July 1976 and what further controls are being imposed on the use of Dioxin in this country.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have studied the report on the dioxin contamination at Seveso presented by the Italian delegate to the Chemicals Group of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at their 12th meeting in October 1976, and which was subsequently reconsidered at the 13th meeting of the Group in Paris on 23rd February 1977.
The chemical known as dioxin has no known commercial use and is not manufactured in the United Kingdom. It may be formed in trace quantities as an unwanted by-product during the manufacture of 2, 4, 5-trichlorophenol. The sole manufacturer of this chemical in the United Kingdom decided to cease manufacture in October 1976, following upon the Seveso disaster. Her Majesty's Government therefore do not consider it necessary to introduce further controls related to the use of dioxin in this country.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware, since I asked a Question on this in October 1976, and was assured, after a very regrettable delay by the Italian authorities, that inquiries were being made, that it is now clear that it is a disaster of great magnitude; that it is perfectly plain that Italian politicians are frustrating all the efforts of international scientists to help; and that Dr. James Allen, an internationally-known expert from the University of Wisconsin, who has been there with his own team of international scientists, and who has been largely ignored by the Italians, describes this as the most dangerous poison in the world? Is he further aware that there have been 14 such international explosions, many of them fully documented; that the behaviour of the National Coal Board in this respect was magnificent and set a superb example; that some people say that they went too far in protecting; and that they authorised the publication of absolutely full details? Is he finally aware

617
that the Question I am now asking is about the emission over Milan of tons of poisonous fumes affecting a large population which has never been isolated; that it is about people being forced back into houses which have not been decontaminated, and about nonsoluble poison still going into the river at Seveso—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lord, I hope that my noble friend will make his remarks shorter.
Lord HALE: My Lords, it is a question of great gravity, which is giving great anxiety and one which was thought suitable for a full investigation by the Sunday Times, a programme on ITV and so on—
Several noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord HALE: My Lords, I am replying to the interruption. Is my noble friend satisfied that there will be any protection against the international spread and expansion of what has been described by Dr. Allen as the deadliest poison in the world?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we have taken our own steps. The manufacturers in this country have ceased production and the matter is for international control and concern. The report to which my noble friend and I referred concluded by saying that it is now necessary to look with an entirely new perspective at the subject of protection in instances such as the one described. It further states that, in Italy, both the legislative norms and the precautionary measures have been found to be lacking. The report calls for national controlling bodies and scientists to co-operate in devising emergency plans which can be put into effect in the event of all other precautionary measures failing. So far as this country is concerned, we have no need for alarm because there will be no such production in Britain.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, regarding the closing down of the Bolsover factory, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government think that this was really necessary? Is it not true that we now have to import all the tri-chlorophenol which is used in this
618
country, whereas previously we were also exporting about £1 million worth per annum? Is it not also true that the Health and Safety Executive on 9th September of last year said that the factory was perfectly safe and merely recommended that there should be a slight improvement in some of the electrical controls? Would my noble friend agree that it is unfortunate if a pure scare stops the production of something which is needed in this country?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, what is needed in this country for the manufacture of herbicides and antiseptics is imported; so far as I am aware—and since I met my noble friend yesterday I have made further inquiries—there is no proposal for a new plant to be made available. The plant for making 2, 4, 5—trichlorophenol was redesigned in about 1972 and was called the "new plant". This is being cleaned out and its future use is uncertain, although it will not be used—and I repeat, not be used—for 2, 4, 5—trichlorophenol. In February 1977 a brand new plant was completed. This will be a general purpose plant. It will be used for a variety of fine chemicals, but, again, definitely not—and I repeat, definitely not—for 2, 4, 5—trichlorophenol.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who know what the molecular cousins of this poisonous substance did to the people and herbage of Vietnam will not care a damn if it is never produced again for mankind?

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (AGRICULTURE) MEETING
11.23 a.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on the EEC Council of Ministers meeting which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on the outcome of the Council of Ministers

619
(Agriculture) on 18th/19th July, at which I was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the discussions on fisheries, and by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for those on Agriculture.
"On the future common fisheries policy the Commission rejected the United Kingdom case for extended exclusive zones for the fishermen of coastal Member States. We warned that unless there was agreement on an exclusive zone of 12 miles with a dominant preference for our fishermen within the zone from 12 to 50 miles we would return to our original demand for an exclusive zone of up to 50 miles. We also re-emphasised our right to take unilateral conservation measures where appropriate. The discussion will be resumed in October. I must frankly say to the House that the Commission's attitude at this meeting was disappointing.
"It was agreed that a Community ban should be re-imposed on fishing for herring in the North Sea. This will replace the United Kingdom national measures which we imposed in our own waters following the failure of the Council on 27th June to reach agreement. This Community ban will extend until the end of September and will be discussed further at the September Council. The Government are determined that it will continue thereafter.
"Satisfactory quotas for 1977 for the West of Scotland herring stock, provisionally agreed at the June Council, will now come into operation very soon.
"The Council agreed to reimpose from 1st September until 15th October the ban on fishing for Norway pout in the area of the North Sea in which such a ban had operated until the end of March.
"The Council discussed a proposal from the Commission that the cif price for New Zealand butter and cheese imported under Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession should be increased by 10 per cent. In view of the length of time since the previous increase we stressed that an early decision was needed. It was agreed that a definitive
620
decision would be taken at the Council's next meeting in September after the necessary scrutiny of the figures at official level.
"On the labelling of milk products we have reached agreement that, contrary to the earlier proposal, the terms "dairy ice cream" and "ice cream" which are now used in the United Kingdom should continue unchanged. However some relatively minor technical points remain unsolved and the draft regulation will be considered again in September.
"We again emphasised the need for a change in the method of calculation of monetary compensatory amounts on pigmeat."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement being made in another place. The arrangements agreed for the conservation of herring and Norway pout appear to be satisfactory—at any rate for the time being. That no progress is being made in negotiating a system of zones for coastal States is disquieting. The extension of fishing limits from 12 to 200 miles carried out internationally this year changes the whole pattern of operations of many of the world's fishing fleets, including our own, and changes the methods of regulation. But this change to 200 miles has been under discussion and in prospect for at least 10 years. What was not known was the form in which it would be introduced and when it would come into effect.
Throughout that period it has been clear that a system which applied to the EEC when there were only six Members with the old 12-mile fishing limit, would not be suitable for the Nine with a 200-mile limit. It was also clear that important negotiations remained to be undertaken when a 200-mile limit was adopted.
I would put two questions to the noble Lord. Does he agree that these negotiations to be continued in October are of very great importance to this country? Secondly, is he aware that the Government will have support from these Benches if they press for an adequate zone in which British fishermen will have preferential

621
rights? This should not be separated from conservation plans; it should form part of those plans, because the coastal States' fishermen will be more concerned than others to preserve the stocks in those waters.
Regarding the other matters in the Statement relating to food, one welcomes the flexibility that has allowed the term "ice cream" to be continued. After all, if descriptions of food were to be subjected to demands for precise terminology, we might in time find ourselves in trouble over for example, "Welsh rarebit" and "toad in the hole."
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches also are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement on the somewhat unpalatable combination of herring and ice cream. We regard it as extremely important that the ban on herring fishing in the North Sea should continue, and in general terms we should like to welcome the contents of this Statement.
11.30 a.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for what they have said, and particularly for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said about the support which the Opposition would give in the efforts the United Kingdom is making to conserve our fisheries stocks. I may say that, with regard to conservation measures, such measures as have been agreed have been agreed at the instigation of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord asked about the future of negotiations. I agree that the progress of the negotiations has been disappointing, but the results of United Kingdom pressure for the improvement of conservation measures should not be underrated, and we shall return to that in the autumn. As the House was told in June, the Government are, and always have been, prepared to be flexible, provided that major objectives are obtained. These are: effective conservation and adequate preference in the allocation of the resources of the waters under United Kingdom jurisdiction. Flexibility is not weakness.
The United Kingdom has the right to take non-discriminatory conservation measures where agreement is not possible
622
within the Community, and the Government on several occasions—for example, over the North Sea herring—have shown they are not afraid to use it. However, a unilateral coastal zone would not be non-discriminatory. I am glad that the other proposals with regard to ice-cream—particularly now that we are approaching the summer season, we hope—are acceptable.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would it be too much to ask the Minister whether he could throw a little further light on the nature of the opposition to the efforts of the representatives of the United Kingdom? Does it consist in a blank refusal or does it consist in a proposal of alternative regulations?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, basically our partners in the Community want to be able to come within our 6–12 mile exclusive zone and to combine that with adequate and agreed quotas and conservation measures. However, agreement has not been reached so far on those, with the exception, of course, of the herring in the North Sea. It remains our aim to have a 12-mile exclusive zone and a variable coastal zone from 12 to 50 miles with a dominant preference for the United Kingdom; and, of course, within that zone we should be able to preserve the bulk of our fish of the herring, sprat and mackerel varieties and at least a fifth of the cod, haddock, plaice and sole. Up to 50 miles, it would not give us our entire United Kingdom requirement of the cod, haddock, plaice and sole varieties, but at least we should have a dominant priority.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether this report does not show the confusion into which we are moving on these issues of the right of nations and of regions unilaterally to decide their occupation of areas of the sea? Is it not a matter for international decision by the International Law of the Sea Conference which has now been sitting?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is absolutely true, and that is why this is one of the questions which are discussed at

623
the Law of the Sea Conference, as my noble friend has rightly said. This is also an international matter, because the fish, of course, do not observe the Community limits: they may spawn within the Community but then migrate hundreds of miles beyond it. So my noble friend is quite right: it is an international question as well.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I, as a relative ignoramus in these matters of fishing, ask a general question of the noble Lord? Difficult though these matters are to solve within the context of the EEC, would they not be more difficult still if the EEC did not exist and we were not a member of it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think in a way that is a hypothetical question, if I may say so, which is rather difficult to answer. On the other hand, we are, of course, bound by the Treaty of Rome, which is one of the difficulties under which we are labouring at present in regard to zones.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not the noble Lord's observation in fact the opposite of the truth? Would we not be much better off if the EEC did not exist?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should not like to answer another very complicated question; but my own view would be, No.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL
11.36 a.m.
Returned from the Commons, with an Amendment disagreed to with Reason for such disagreement.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill (200) as first printed for the Lords]
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Clause 1
  1 Page 1, line 8, after "corporate" insert ",up to 31st July 1978, except that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, which shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, continue the Price Commission in being as a body corporate for a period which begins with the date on which the Commission would otherwise cease and which is not longer than one year,"
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  2 Because it is desirable that the Price Commission should continue to exist on a permanent basis.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 2. The Amendment we are now considering concerns the permanence of the Price Commission and that issue has already been debated extensively, both here and in another place. Amendments to limit the life of the Commission were rejected in Standing Committee and on Report in the other place. On Report in the other place, the matter was debated for 4½ hours. The Amendment we are considering, although of slightly different effect from similar Amendments debated in another place, nevertheless limits the life of the Price Commission. That is a concept which the other place has firmly and repeatedly rejected and, in the light of the Message before this House, I think it would be wrong for your Lordships to carry the issue any further. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 2.—(Lord Oram.)
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we greatly regret that the Commons have not seen fit to agree to our Amendment. We are now authorising, by not insisting upon our Amendment, an indefinite life for the Price Commission. The Commission, in some areas, has draconian powers which we were unable to persuade your Lordships to vary. I agree that not all the powers of the new Price Commission are to be permanent, but we are agreeing these powers in the face and in the knowledge of the Government's

  625
  policy for wage controls which were announced last week. It is for your Lordships and the other place to judge whether the balance has been properly achieved. I must say that we doubt it.
  It is perhaps not wholly realised, although we have endeavoured to persuade your Lordships of this view, that persistent and draconian, as I have called them, controls over prices are all very well if the same controls exist over costs; but, at least in the area of wages and salaries, we believe that the Government's proposals are hardly adequate. Of course, if the figures that the Government have suggested as being appropriate turn out to be observed in due course and in practice, well and good. But if, as some fear, the growth of wages and salaries, unhindered by any effective control, rises at a great rate then companies will be put in gravest difficulties. I am sure your Lordships will understand—although it does not always seem to be so—the need for profits in these circumstances, because without profits there is no growth, no new employment and even, indeed, an extension of the present unhappily high unemployment. All these things, I fear, have been said before and I am not really saying anything very new.
  I would end by saying that we greatly regret that the House of Commons has not seen fit to agree to this Amendment, and I would ask the Government whether they are really happy with the printed Reason for the disagreement, which we are asked to accept today. I recall during the passage of, I think, the Dock Work Regulation Act or the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, last Session, when there was some "ping pong"— as it is called—going on, when the proceedings on the consideration of our Amendments were guillotined, that the Reasons even then were better than the one that we are asked to accept this morning. I do not believe there is any future for us in pursuing this matter further, and thus I would not propose to oppose what the noble Lord is suggesting.
  Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the fact that in another place this Amendment was rejected, as of course we voted against it when it came before your Lordships' House. We believe it is essential that
  626
  these powers of investigation should continue. We also believe that they are particularly necessary, now that pay limits are not subject to direct control of the same order as through the Social Contract, which exists until the end of this month. We feel that it continues to be very important that everyone should realise that there are measures for continuing control over prices.
  We would, however, urge, as we urged throughout the debate in this House on this Bill, that while we entirely support the idea of continuing investigatory powers, we hope that the existence of the Commission as such will not be continued unduly, and that steps will be taken quickly to amalgamate this organisation with the Monopolies Commission.
  Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, but will not go into any detail. Naturally, the House will realise that one is very sad that the Government did not see fit to accept this most moderate of Amendments. But, even sadder, I find it very hard to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave support to the Reason given:
  "Because it is desirable that the Price Commission should continue to exist on a permanent basis."
  The Price Commission continuing on a permanent basis must only indicate that the Government have abandoned all hope of licking inflation, and I think that this is very sad.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I add to what has just been said from this side of the House? We can quite understand the Government's belief that the Price Commission will work; that, indeed, is why they have introduced the measure. But it seemed to us on this side of the House that it would be as well to see whether it achieved confidence or tended, on the other hand, to disrupt confidence. We still think that it would have been much better to introduce a measure which would have enabled us, from time to time, to assess how it was working, because there can be no guarantee that it will work or will maintain confidence in business, which is of such overriding importance.
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has indicated that he is not opposing the Motion that I moved, it would not be desirable that I should deal at length with the comments that have been made. But I would draw attention to one point, which I tried to stress during our debate in Committee and on Report. This Bill proposes to set up an investigatory system, and that is a long-term purpose not directly related to pay policy and the immediate inflationary situation. It is a new system whose permanency is justified, in our view, by the increased concentration of British industry, and the fact that competition is severely limited in many sectors. It is that long-term purpose which I rather fear has not sufficiently been appreciated in your Lordships' House.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will recall that on several occasions I have indicated our general agreement with the point she made, about a future merger with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. But I have also indicated that it is not a simple, straight forward matter and time is necessary to consider the complications involved.
  Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask, in view of what he said in his opening remarks, why it is necessary in this Bill to have powers to freeze prices?
  Lord ORAM: My Lords, that again we discussed very considerably in the Committee stage. I did not say that the Bill, in having a long-term purpose, had no relationship to the immediate situation, and it is in relation to the immediate situation that the price freezing powers are necessary.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS OF THE HOPS MARKETING SCHEME 1932, AS AMENDED
11.47 a.m.
Lord STRABOLGI rose Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the draft Amendments of the Hops Marketing Scheme 1932, as amended, laid before the House on 30th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My
628
Lords, I beg to move that the Amendments to the Hops Marketing Scheme 1932, as amended, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved. The Hops Marketing Scheme, which applies only to England, is administered by the Hops Marketing Board. It came into operation in 1932. Since then, all producers of hops for sale—who currently number 410—have been required to register with the Board. Brewer-growers, who grow hops only for their own use, are exempt from registration with the Board so long as they do not offer for sale any of their hops. The Board buys all hops produced for sale. The Scheme has been amended on a number of occasions, most recently in 1974.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Board operates a quota system, which attempts to match the supply of English hops with the demand for them, which is assessed by the Board after consultation with the brewers to whom the hops are sold. In simple terms, each grower holds a basic quota expressed in weight of hops produced. Each year, he is allocated an annual quota which is his share of the total estimated demand for hops of that crop. Hops have no commercial use, other than in brewing. There have been changes in the pattern of demand for English hops, so that demand for varieties which have a high alpha-acid, or bittering, content has increased, while demand for the more traditional varieties has declined. The Board has responded to these changes by seeking to encourage production of those varieties of hops which are in demand, thus keeping the industry competitive. Since Accession to the EEC, the home industry has no longer been protected by quantitative controls on imports from other Member States.
The Board considered that further amendment of the Scheme was required to ensure its continued effectiveness. Accordingly, it prepared draft amendments to the Scheme which were designed: first, to secure the supply of specific hop varieties of the quality standards wanted by United Kingdom brewers, and to supply them on forward contracts for up to two or three years ahead; second, to develop an export trade; third, to achieve a fair return to growers who take steps to meet the demand for new varieties; fourth,

629
to continue to operate within the framework of a quota scheme so as to minimise the risk of wasteful over-production of hops.
The proposed amendments were designed to introduce, first, provision for each variety of hops consigned to the Board to be allocated to a separate varietal pool; and, secondly, a system of priorities in payment to growers within pools so that they would be encouraged to produce hops to be sold on forward contract. The scheme's quota provisions would continue to operate but in a somewhat more complicated fashion than before. Amendments were also proposed to provide for transition from the present arrangements.
In addition, the Board also sought power to acquire hop haling presses and to sell them to registered producers, should the need arise. Finally, the amendments would delete a reference in the Scheme to the Permanent Joint Hops Committee which no longer exists. The Agricultural Marketing Act requires that, in normal circumstances, a marketing scheme may be amended only on the initiative of the Board concerned, and the Board must first notify all registered producers of the proposed Amendments.
The Board circulated the proposed Amendments to growers in November 1975. If growers with an aggregate hop area of 1,000 hectares so request, a poll of producers has to be held on whether or not the Amendments should be submitted to the Minister. In this case no poll was requested, and the Amendments were submitted to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my noble friend Lord Peart, in January 1976. My noble friend Lord Peart duly gave notice that he had received the proposed Amendments, and three growers subsequently made formal objections. In accordance with the Act, he directed that a public inquiry be held into the objections and he appointed Mr. A. O. R. Vick, Barrister at Law, to conduct it.
Mr. Vick heard evidence from 11th to 22nd October 1976 and reported to the present Minister in December of that year; his report was published in January 1977. It recommended that the Board's draft Amendments which were the subject of the public inquiry should operate only
630
in respect of the 1977 crop, while the Board should seek arrangements for later crops which would enable producers to offer to the Board hops up to the limit of their basic quota.
The Board subsequently indicated its intention to make certain administrative arrangements governing the determination of quota which do not require amendment of the Scheme and their effect was explained to growers at a series of special district meetings. I understand that these arrangements which help growers to plan their production ahead are satisfactory to the objectors and to other growers, and that their effect would be to allow growers to offer hops up to the limit recommended in the inquiry report. After considering the original Amendments and the inquiry report and in the light of the arrangements to be adopted by the Board, my noble friend proposed to the Board some modifications of the Amendments. These modifications were of a largely technical nature, allowing the amended Scheme to operate with effect from the 1977 crop and providing for the Board to maximise payment to growers in certain circumstances where the Amendments as originally drafted would have led to a lower return on their hops. The Board assented to these modifications.
I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will welcome this successful conclusion. The statutory safeguards contained in the Agricultural Marketing Act have, I believe, worked well in this case and a sensible, workable solution has been reached. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Vick, who conducted the inquiry, for identifying the problems posed by the original Amendments, and I am glad that growers generally have welcomed the modified Amendments. The Scheme has worked well for over 40 years, and I am confident that these Amendments will now contribute to its continued effectiveness.
As there had been a public inquiry, and my right honourable friend the present Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that these Amendments will conduce to the more efficient operation of the Scheme, he has laid these Amendments, as modified in draft, before each House of Parliament for approval. My Lords, I therefore seek the approval of your Lordships' House for them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Amendments of our hops marketing arrangements of the Hops Marketing Scheme 1932, as amended, laid before the House on ', 30th June, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
11.56 a.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining in such detail the Amendments to the Scheme. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of two questions which I should like to ask him. They relate specifically to our relationship with the Common Agricultural Policy. First, in the Government's opinion does the Scheme, as redrafted, conflict with the Common Agricultural Policy in any way? Secondly, can the Government confirm their support for the continuance of the Hop Marketing Board as the agency which will operate the Scheme in the future?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the welcome he has given to the Scheme and also for his courtesy in giving me notice of the questions that he intended to raise. I shall do my best to answer them as fully as I can. The noble Lord asked whether it can be confirmed that the redrafted Scheme does not conflict with the Common Agricultural Policy. The Board has proposed Amendments to the Scheme which my right honourable friend the Minister has modified in certain respects. These modified Amendments do not affect the position of the Board in the Common Agricultural Policy context. The EEC hops regimé has recently been revised. It provides for United Kingdom growers to benefit from income aid which will be paid through the Board until the end of 1980; but before the end of 1980 we shall need to discuss with the Board its constitution after that date.
With regard to the noble Lord's second question—whether the Government intend to support the Hops Marketing Board within the Common Agricultural Policy—I can say that it is recognised that the Hops Marketing Board's activities have to be consistent with the requirements of the Treaty of Rome and the EEC hops regimé, but while we recognise that certain changes will be necessary after the end of 1980 we
632
aim to ensure the continued effectiveness of our hops marketing arrangements within the EEC context.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (SUGAR) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1977
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (CHEESE) ORDER 1977
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (COCOA AND CHOCOLATE PRODUCTS) ORDER 1977
11.59 a.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY rose to move, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) (Amendment) Order 1977, laid before the House on 12th July, be approved;
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cheese) Order 1977, laid before the House on 12th July, be approved; and
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cocoa and Chocolate Products) Order 1977, laid before the House on 13th July, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, unless any noble Lord objects, it is my intention to move the three orders which are on the Order Paper en bloc. These three orders are undeniably different in what they have set out to achieve, but they have one very important characteristic in common. They are all orders made under Section 21 of the Weights and Measures Act and are designed to give greater protection to consumers.
Turning first to the order on sugar, the House will be familiar with the type of metrication order we have initiated in the past to enable the food industry, where it was governed by legislation to prepack only in prescribed imperial quantities, to convert to the metric system. Our mettrication report to Parliament in April this year indicated however, that a new phase had been reached in the metrication programme. The Weights and Measures

633
&c Act 1976, by removing the restriction on terminating the use of imperial sizes hitherto imposed by the Weights and Measures Act 1963, made it possible to legislate for the removal of imperial prescribed quantities from 21 April 1978 onwards. So long as the option remains to prepack or to sell either in imperial or metric quantities there is a risk, albeit a small one, of consumers being confused. The draft order on Sugar now before the House is the first of a series, all concerned with basic foodstuffs, which will have the effect of removing the imperial option and so, in each case, complete the metrication process.
As we recognised in the metrication report, an abrupt withdrawal of imperial sizes could cause problems of possession and sale for those in the distribution chain and at the retail level who would still be stocking and selling old imperial packs. Our discussions with those concerned in the packing, distribution and retail sale of sugar convinced us that, despite the expectations of packers, to be completely metric by 21st April, 1978 there was a need to make legal provision to cover old imperial packs which might still exist in the chain after that date.
The order has accordingly been designed to take effect in two stages: an initial cut-off of the freedom to pack or import in imperial sizes from 21st April, 1978, followed on 2nd July, 1978 by a final cut-off date for the sale of imperial packs of sugar. During the transitional period the act of selling or possessing old imperial packs will not be an offence. An additional safeguard has also been provided for those in the distribution chain by restricting the offences related to selling or possessing any imperial packs made up after 21st April, 1978, to the packing and importing sectors. From 2nd July, 1978 all imperial packs will be illegal. We are satisfied that these measures which, although providing proper protection for all those trading and selling old imperial packs, also recognise consumer interests by restricting the transitional period so as not to prolong confusion during the changeover.
The draft order on cocoa and chocolate products is a much more complex provision but it has an important link with the order on sugar. Not only does it introduce an alternative metric range
634
for cocoa and chocolate powders but it also provides for the existing imperial range to be phased out. Subject to the same safeguards as for sugar, it makes it an offence to pack or import cocoa and chocolate powders in imperial sizes from 31st August, 1978 and bans all imperial sales from 31st August, 1979.
The main purpose of this order is to implement outstanding obligations arising from no less than 5 EEC Directives all concerned with the production and marketing of a wide range of cocoa and chocolate products. The main provisions of these Directives are concerned with composition and labelling and were implemented last year by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Food and Drugs Act in the Cocoa and Chocolate Products Regulations 1976. It was not until certain national options had been exercised in these regulations that we could proceed to implement the important weights and measures provisions.
The metric weight scale for cocoa and chocolate powders was included in the fourth amendment to the Directive at our insistence, since we wished to continue to limit sales to prescribed quantities in the same way as we have done for these products for more than 50 years.
Other provisions of the Directives which we are implementing in this order mark a significant step forward in consumer protection. These are requirements which consumers have been pressing us to introduce for several years and we are therefore able to support the EEC initiative.
The draft order will extend weight marking to cover all cocoa and chocolate products weighing 50 grammes or more. This will apply to Easter eggs; chocolate figurines—many of which are sold as stocking-fillers at Christmas; Christmas selection packs; and, probably most important of all, to many of the smaller bars of chocolate which escape weight marking under our present 3 oz. (85 grammes) exemption limit. The order also introduces the concept of prescribed quantities for chocolate bars weighing more than 85 grammes. The range is a metric one but dual marking will be required under our current marking regulations. Finally, the order introduces certain controls over the labelling of non-retail packs with quantity information.
The provisions of this order are complex and have required both lengthy and extensive consultation with trade, consumer and enforcement organisations. We are satisfied that the transitional arrangements for products other than powders are adequate: these provide for manufacture or import of non-complying products to cease from 31st December 1977 and for such sales to be banned altogether in the United Kingdom from 30th April 1978.
Finally, may I turn to the draft order on cheese. At the time when the 1963 Act was before Parliament only limited controls were imposed on the labelling of prepacked cheese. All varieties of cheese are subject to weight loss after packaging, but the extent to which they do so varies according to the nature of the particular variety and to the type of materials used for packaging. Under a minimum weight system it was considered impractical even to require relatively stable cheeses such as Cheddar or Cheshire and processed cheese which accounted for around 80 per cent. of the domestic market, to be weight marked. It was however agreed that the consumer had a right to weight information and the Schedule to the Act required that the weight should be made known to the customer at the point of sale.
Improvements in packaging materials and the increase in sales of varieties of more stable cheeses make it practical and necessary to require the varieties named in the order to be weight marked by the packer. This is a desirable extension of consumer protection—as in the case of certain chocolate products—and a necessary prelude to the extension of unit pricing to cheese.
The order also reduces the level of container allowance for all non-prepacked cheese to the level where it covers a sheet of greaseproof paper or plastic film placed on the scale for reasons of hygiene. However, it removes the very generous container allowance for prepacked Cheddar and Cheshire and makes no such allowance for other cheeses brought within the scope of the order. This is a matter on which representations were received from cheese packers, some of whom continued to indicate the gross weight on their packs, in spite of the fact that modern weighing equipment, including also many price-computing scales, are
636
fitted with taring devices. The value of the container allowance to the trader is far in excess of that intended when the Act was drafted. The amendment of the container allowance has the strong support of consumer organisations.
My Lords, these three orders are all desirable extensions of consumer protection and I commend them all to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) (Amendment) Order 1977, laid before the House on 12th July, be approved;
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cheese) Order 1977, laid before the House on 12th July, be approved; and
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cocoa and Chocolate Products) Order 1977, laid before the House on 13th July, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
12.10 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships long on this matter. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for explaining these Motions to us. Speaking personally, I see that metrication marches on, although I am not sure that my emotions follow the march with the same enthusiasm as the orders do, but undoubtedly I am quite wrong. I find that when my children come home from school they do not even know about inches and pounds—they have never heard of them—but it seems that they do know about metric units. So be it, my Lords.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions? First, he said that dual marking would continue after the time when the main markings become metric. Can he give an indication of how long he expects this to be maintained? I do not suppose there is any very great risk that people will not gradually become aware of metric markings, but as I said before, it takes an awfully long time for people to become aware of centigrade temperature, for example, as compared with fahrenheit. The sooner they become aware of it the better. There must be a time when dual marking will be removed.

637
There are, of course, arguments from both sides on the question of the minimum weight of cocoa and chocolate products which are exempt from marking. One has to bear in mind that at one time the figure was below sixpence in selling value, in price. The comparable figure for that, I take it, would be something of the order of 7½ pence nowadays, whereas now we go to a one and three quarter ounce limit. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to say a word or two about that. Is this roughly common throughout the EEC? Is the 50 gramme figure common throughout the EEC? There is no doubt that, so far as bars of chocolate are concerned, this is a matter of great importance to children. There are arguments both ways, especially considering the highly fluctuating cost of cocoa. When the price of cocoa increases it is necessary either to increase prices or to reduce quantities. I am not at all certain—I never have been certain—that it really is in the interests of consumers to have too rigid quantities, because it may well be that, if it is necessary to put up the price of something of small size, consumers will be getting worse value with the increased price than they would have clone if the quantity had been reduced.
May I ask the noble Lord one question on cheese. There is a very tight restriction on the kinds of cheeses which are to be pre-packed only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by net weight. One notices that these are all British cheeses. Is there no comparable requirement for imported cheeses in this range? And is the range comprehensive so far as British cheeses are concerned? The cheeses I am talking about are natural cheeses.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord has certainly given me a number of questions. So far as dual marking is concerned, this will continue as long as necessary, no longer than necessary. It is very difficult to give the noble Lord a general indication of the time. We will just have to see how we go. The intention, of course, is not to prolong it for ever. On the question of cocoa and chocolate products and the small bars of chocolate, of course, I appreciate the point the noble Lord has
638
made, but there has been a tremendous consumer demand for several years; it so happens that consumer demand in Britain has coincided with the EEC, which is rather a welcome indication, and that is why it has been brought in. So far as the exemption limit is concerned, to which the noble Lord referred, that is common throughout Europe.
On the question of cheeses, I have not an immediate answer on imported cheeses. If there is any extension on the British varieties, I have no doubt that that would probably be incorporated. Looking very rapidly at the order itself—I assume the noble Lord has seen the order—there is quite a comprehensive cover of British cheeses, and my impression is that it would cover the multitude of cheeses. We shall see. On the question of the imported cheeses, I cannot give an immediate answer. Perhaps I might he able to give the noble Lord detailed information at some future time.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UP-RATING ORDER 1977
SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS 1977
CHILD BENEFIT AND SOCIAL SECURITY (FIXING AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATES) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1977
FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS (COMPUTATION) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 1977
CHILD BENEFIT AND SOCIAL SECURITY (FIXING AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATES) AMENDMENT NO. 2) REGULATIONS 1977
12.17 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1977, which was

639
laid before your Lordships' House on 13th July, be approved, and I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal more with the other four also. I am not unmindful of the fact that there is a good deal of business to come in relation to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill. If it is with your Lordships' agreement, I will move all five Motions and at the same time endeavour to be as brief as I can. I am not unmindful that these regulations and orders are complicated. It is extremely difficult to deal with them simply, and, in trying to do so, I could, I suppose, add to the confusion.
The order and the Supplementary Benefits Regulations together provide for most of the increases in social security benefits. The Family Income Supplements Regulations provide for the prescribed amounts, which were increased under an earlier Instrument with effect from this present week, to go up again from the same week in November as the social security up-rating takes effect, and also provide for increases in the maximum weekly payments from the same week. The first of the child Benefit Amendment Regulations is technical, in that it revokes earlier deductions from the rates of national insurance dependency increases for children which are now taken account of in the schedule to the Up-rating Order. The Second Child Benefit Amendment Regulations (they are numbered No. 2) are much more significant. They provide for the substantial increase in child benefit rates from April 1978 which the Chancellor announced on 15th July, as part of the second stage of phasing-in the full child benefit scheme.
It will be helpful to your Lordships if take in order the four separate schemes under which benefits are up-rated by the instruments before us. Let me start with the social security up-rating order and the national insurance and industrial injuries benefits which it covers. A list of the principal benefit rates, both as they are now and as the order proposes to increase them, can be found in Appendix 1 to the Government Actuary's Report (Cmnd 6848). The most significant increases—both socially and financially—are those in the rates of retirement pension. These will be raised in November from £15.30 to £17.50 for a single pensioner, and from £24.50 to
640
£28 a week for a married couple. The new figures involve increases of about 14½ per cent. and it is proposed that other long-term benefits should go up in proportion. The standard rate of sickness and unemployment benefit will rise from £12.90 to £14.70 for a single person, and from £20.90 to £23.80 for a married couple. These are increases of around 14 per cent. and other short-term benefits will rise by corresponding amounts.
Pensioners will, for the first time, benefit from the recent change in the law which links the operation of the earnings rule with the general level of earnings. The amount that a person can earn before his pension is reduced will go up in November from £35 to £40. a week This increase relates to the rise in earnings which is expected to take place between April 1976, the date when the current figure of £35 came into effect, and this November. The change is made by Article 4 of the up-rating order.
I know that many of your Lordships have a very special concern about and interest in the welfare of the disabled and will be pleased to know that the mobility allowance is to be increased from its present £5 to £7 a week. There are also increases in attendance allowance, which will rise from £12·20 a week to £14 at the higher rate and, for people entitled to the lower rate of the allowance, from £8·15 to £9.30 a week. Both non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance will go up from £9.20 to £10.50 a week. The therapeutic earnings limit, which is applicable to all the incapacity benefits, will also rise from £9 to £10 a week—though this is not in the order. It will be effected by concurrent up-rating regulations, which, as your Lordships know, are negative, and are therefore not before your Lordships today.
The up-rating order fulfils the statutory duty of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State under Section 125 of the Social Security Act to raise benefits by the amout he expects to be necessary—on this occasion—to match price inflation. After reviewing the state of the economy and the likely trends within it, he has forecast that the annual rate of inflation will have fallen to around 13 per cent in November 1977. There may be a very real measure of disagreement between some noble Lords and the Government

641
on this matter, but that is his judgment and, if I may say so with the greatest respect, only time will tell. Since that forecast was made, it has been reinforced by many positive indications that the worst of this year's inflation is over: it is significant that one month's increase in prices between March and April-2·6 per cent.—was followed by a rise of less than 2 per cent. in the two months from April to June. As I have said, this is a judgment; it could be wrong and we shall just have to wait to see what happens.
I now turn to the draft regulations which provide for increases in the supplementary benefit scale rates laid down in Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. The increases that are proposed are comparable to the national insurance increases to which I have just referred, and will come into force at the same time. We propose that the long-term scale rates which apply to supplementary pensioners and to people, other than the unemployed, who have received supplementary allowance continuously for two years, should be increased from £15·70 a week to 17·90 for the single householder, and from £24·85 a week to £28·35 for a married couple. The rates where a supplementary pensioner or his wife is over 80 years of age will continue to be 25p higher at each point. The ordinary scale rates, which apply to the unemployed and to people who have received a supplementary allowance for less than two years, will be increased by £1·80 to £14·50 for a single householder and by £2·90 to £23·35 for a married couple.
Scale rates for other adults and for children are also being raised. The special rates which apply to the blind will go up by the same amounts as the corresponding rates for sighted persons, so that the special preference which they have had for a good long time will continue. Regulation No. 2 proposes that the amounts added for attendance requirements in assessing supplementary benefit for a person who receives attendance allowance should be increased. I should also like to mention two other changes which, though not provided for by the regulations, are an important element in the up-rating. Your Lordships will be pleased to learn that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have again decided to increase by substantial amounts both the discretionary additions for extra heating and
642
the standard additions for special diets. These changes will also take effect from 14th November.
I now come to Family Income Supplement. The object of the supplement is to help poor families where the breadwinner is in full-time work. Where income is below the prescribed amount for the size of the family concerned, half the difference is payable as Family Income Supplement. This very week, regulations which your Lordships and the other place approved earlier in the year came into force, raising the prescribed amount for a one-child family to £41.50, with this amount increasing by £3.50 for each subsequent child. On 15th November, the figure of £41.50 will rise to £43.80, and the addition for each other child will go up from £3.50 to £4. In addition, the draft Family Income Supplement Regulations now before your Lordships propose increases in the maximum weekly amounts of supplement payable. The basic maximum for a one-child family will rise by £1 from £8.50 to £9.50; and the step for each additional child will go up by 50 pence to £1.
I think that one can say that these increases are generous by any standards in a scheme which involves a minimum of administrative checks and under which, as your Lordships know, the award once made, continues for 52 weeks, regardless of what may happen. Thus, for example, a family with four children living on an income of less than £31 a week from full time work would receive a weekly cash supplement of £12.50 for 12 months in addition to a range of other benefits—such as free school meals—to which all Family Income Supplement families are automatically entitled.
Taking into account the child benefit which these families receive and which, unlike child interim benefit and family allowances, is wholy disregarded as income for Family Income Supplement purposes, these increases are more than sufficient to maintain the relativity between the incomes of the low-paid and the rest of the earning population which was restored by the large Family Income Supplement uprating in July last year. The changes that we have made to Family Income Supplement this year—disregarding child benefit in April, the interim uprating of the prescribed amounts in July and the

643
proposed increases in the prescribed amounts in November—mean that the number of families receiving Family Income Supplement will, we estimate, increase from nearly 83,000 in March to somewhere in the region of 95,000 this November. The cost of Family Income Supplement has gone up from £18 million in 1976–77 to £24 million in 1977–78. To the extent that this may represent an improved take-up of the Family Income Supplement, we can only applaud this trend and wish that people would take it up if they are entitled to it.
Let me now come to increases in child benefit. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has reviewed the rate of child benefit under Section 5(5) of the Child Benefit Act 1975. He has decided that, with effect from 3rd April 1978, the rate should be increased to £2·30 per week for each child. There will be an extra £1 for the first child for those one-parent families which now get the 50p per week increase. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will unreservedly welcome these increases. They give more money to the generality of families with children, which have been particularly feeling the squeeze on real incomes. They put first children on the same level of benefit as other children, as we had always intended. And they represent a second stage in the phasing-in of the full child benefit scheme, under which child tax allowances are gradually being converted into child benefit.
For child benefit does not, of course, stand alone; it is one-half of an exorcise, of which the phasing-out of child tax allowances is the other half. Just over one-half of the cost of next year's increase in child benefit will be met from the withdrawal of a part of the child tax allowances. But the rest, which amounts to more than £300 million, will be additional money newly devoted to family support. If we take together the effect on the husband paying basic rate tax and the wife who draws the child benefit, there will be a gain to the one-child family of 67p a week and to a four-child family of £1·69.
For people with incomes too low to allow them to make full use of their tax allowances, and for lone parents drawing the £1 increase, the gains will be significantly
644
higher. And, of course, within the family, support is being shifted from the husband—who usually gets the tax allowances—to the wife, who will get the benefit. As your Lordships know, last year the mother with a one-child family got no benefit at all. This year she draws £1 a week; next year she will have £2·30. That means that, for the four-child family, the corresponding figures will be as follows: the £4·50 benefit, which was made up of three allowances of £1·50 per week, will go up to £5·50, which will be made up of the for the first child plus £1·50 for each of the other three children; and next year the mother will receive £2·30 for each child, which, for a four-child family, will be £9·20 a week.
Before leaving provision for children, I should say a few words about national insurance dependency increases, as these are dealt with in no less than three of the Instruments which your Lordships have before you. As the money which is channelled to families through child benefit is available during unemployment or sickness or widowhood just as much as during employment, the dependency increases which are payable with the national insurance benefits for these various contingencies are being modified to take account of the child benefit. Thus, the present rates of dependency increase —£3·05 a week for the first child of an unemployment or sickness beneficiary and £2·55 for each subsequent child, or £6·45 and £5·95 respectively for a long-term beneficiary's children—are arrived at by applying a deduction to take account of the present rates of child benefit.
That deduction will not, however, be needed after November, as the up-rating order contains in its Schedule the actual increases which beneficiaries will then receive. Hence the Fixing and Adjustment of Rates Amendment Regulations—that is simply what it means. When the new Schedule takes effect, the short-term rates which I have mentioned will rise to the levels which are spelt out in the up-rating order. Next April, however, the increases in child benefit which I have just outlined to your Lordships will means that a further deduction will become appropriate. Under the terms of the relevant parts of the No. 2 Regulations—I have been talking about the No. 1 Regulations—the amount payable for the children of

645
National Insurance short-term beneficiaries will come down to a standard rate of £2·20 a child, and that for the children of long-term beneficiaries to £6·10 a child.
I am afraid that this is far from being straightforward. I always find some difficulty in understanding all this and am never ashamed to say so. Although it should be reasonably clear to me, I am quite certain that, when listening to it like this, it must be frightfully confusing. But I only hope that, if noble Lords read the Official Report, some of the things that I have said will fall into place and will have some meaning after all.
I do not think that I should take up any more time, but I should like to say a few words about the costs of these increases in benefits and the way in which they will be paid for. The various improvements that I have described, net of the saving from the reduction in the child tax allowances for those who get child benefit, will cost about £1·8 billion in a full year. Over half a billion pounds of this will be met by the Exchequer and about 1¼ billion will fall on the National Insurance Fund. However, there is no question of any alteration in national insurance contribution levels before April 1978. The contributions which came into force last April are adequate—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will say more than adequate—to cover the first four months' costs of the higher benefits between this November and next April.
Turning to the contribution levels which will be needed from April 1978 for the 1978–79 income tax year, these will depend not only on the anticipated cost of benefits but on such variables as the level of earnings and the level of unemployment which are then expected. It is too early yet to make firm predictions about these matters. Indeed, a further complicating factor is the introduction in April of next year of the new pensions scheme under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. This will mean one level of contribution rates for the majority of employees, who will then begin to earn an earnings-related addition to their basic pension, and a lower contribution rate for employees who will be contracted out because they are members of good occupational pension schemes.
646
All those factors will be taken into account by my right honourable friend in his annual review of contributions in the autumn, when more up-to-date information will be available. Your Lordships will receive a further report from the Government Actuary showing the effect of these changes already legislated for and of any new proposals arising out of the review. Any new rates of contributions would, as I have said, operate from April 1978 and, of course, would be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that it is not necessary for me to say anything more at this stage. I am sorry to have been so long and to have put forward such a complicated business, but I hope that your Lordships will give approval to the five orders in due course.
Moved, That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1977, laid before the House on 13th July, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefits (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 20th June, be approved.
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 15th June, he approved.
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved.
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 15th July, he approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
12.40 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining these five orders. I am, for the reasons that he has given, glad to take them together. He has given us an enormous amount of detailed and complicated information. For those of us who try and follow these matters it is unsatisfactory that there really is not time available this morning to discuss them with the thoroughness that I am sure we would all wish. I know that the noble Lord himself is not responsible for the delay in the House

647
receiving these orders, but nevertheless it is unfortunate that they have turned up on this Friday.
In view of the time there are only two points that I should like to raise. The first one is concerned with the increases in pensions and benefits which are supposed to be in line with the rate of inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated that the increases in retirement pensions and other pensions are of an order of 14 per cent., to cover the year from November 1977 to November 1978. As he will be aware, it was in April 1976 that the basis on which the increases were calculated was altered and, for the first time, instead of having the historic rate of inflation as the basis for increase in benefits it was the expected rate of inflation; that is to say, in 1976, instead of having the rate of inflation from March 1975 to March 1976, the increase in benefit was based on the expected rate of inflation from November 1976 to November 1977. This was given at 15 per cent. instead of the historic rate of 21 per cent. It so happens that the Government seem to have been fortunate that it will probably work out at something like that rate. Nevertheless, we cannot be sure that that is going to be so, and the Government are now expecting that the rate of inflation will in fact have fallen to 13 per cent., if I have understood the noble Lord's figures correctly.
What I should like to ask the noble Lord is what the Government expect to do if their calculations are wrong and the rate of inflation is higher in November. As I understand it, there cannot be any further up-rating for at least six months. This would be until April. If there has to be an up-rating will it be back-dated to November? If the noble Lord has not got the answers to these questions before him perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me on the point because I believe it to be an important matter indeed, and I should have thought that although there was a case pending on what happened last year it would certainly be in breach of the law if there was not a benefit based on the true rate of inflation in the year rather than the expected rate. I think that this is important because, although the increase is 14½ per cent., the rate of inflation at the end of June was given as 10.9 per cent., and it therefore assumes a very low rate of
648
inflation for the following five months of the year.
The second point concerns the child benefit scheme. I think it must be taken in relation as well to the Statement by the Chancellor last week. The general effect of all these benefits is that the child benefit scheme would give an increased child benefit to the mother next April, and it would take away from the father the tax allowances. I had made a note of the actual gain to the family. We had calculated that the average family with two children would probably be a pound a week better off. When all this is added up and the increase to the family of the price of school meals is added in, it has the effect that the family is approximately in the same situation as it is now. It is not, in any real meaning of the word, better off at all.
We on this side of the House are not critical of the general principle of the price increase of school meals; indeed, we have long argued that there should be far more selectivity in social benefits which this particular extension of the free school meal service implies. But it seems to me, on first looking at all these net gains and losses, that it underlines the need for there to be a lobby in the country looking after the interests of the family as a whole. I have stressed this point before, and I stress it again now, because I think that at the end of the day the average family will in fact be no better off than in fact it is now. I do not wish to be critical in this matter because I believe that in general it is a step in the right direction, but it is unfortunate that the Government are not in a position to do any more to help support the family as a whole.
12.46 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to join too in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for so thoroughly and so clearly explaining these orders to us. The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, as he explained, is the regular up-rating order to cope with increases in prices or in earnings, whichever is the greater, and this year again prices are dominant. Nevertheless, as he pointed out, increased revenue from increased earnings goes far to offset the increase, and indeed a surplus of £698 million is

649
forecast for this year in the Government Actuary's report. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was a little upset on the occasion when these increases were first announced on 25th May, and we questioned whether the inflation rate would prove to be 13 per cent. between last November and next, as the Government predict. I must say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in casting some doubt as to whether that prediction is going to be fulfilled and, like her, I should be interested to know what will happen if it is not. I think the fact that we pose this question underlines how unsatisfactory it is to have a reference period half in the past and half in the future.
The cost for a full year of these increases in this order, according to the Government Actuary's report, is £1,234 million. Last year's increase was estimated to cost £1,158 million in a full year, so that allowing for the decline in the value of money this year's extra cost, met by the same percentage contribution rates as last year, appears to be less than last year's extra cost. I must repeat that the mobility allowance increase from £5 to £7 per week, though welcome, is still far from adequate. The supplementary benefit increase follows the increase in social security, and again is designed to match inflation.
I welcome the increase in the Family Income Supplement. This particular benefit of course is means-tested. It is cheap, £24 million now, and I am glad that the take-up is improving. That has been one of the problems with it. But it would be much more satisfactory if we could get rid of the Family Income Supplement and replace it with something like child benefit. To do so would cost £5,000 million, and when one weighs that against the £24 million which is at present spent on Family Income Supplement, one realises that in present circumstances this is a benefit which has to be continued in spite of its drawbacks in connection with the poverty trap.
I should like to say a word about child benefit and the increases announced. The second order, as the noble Lord explained, covers the recently announced increases in child benefit. We on these Benches have been urging that there should be an increase in child benefit as a means of tackling the poverty trap, and as a
650
first step on the road to a tax credit system, or perhaps a second step, since the existence of child benefit is a first step. Your Lordships may recall that it was one of the points made to the Prime Minister by my right honourable friend Mr. David Steel, following the week-end meeting recently at St. Ermin's Hotel, and I therefore welcome the increase and congratulate the Government on it.
The increase will be paid partly by the already planned withdrawal of a further part of the income tax children's allowances and partly, as the noble Lord pointed out, by additional expenditure of about £300 million. I am glad the Government have been prepared to find this extra money. There will be a further reduction in child tax allowances in the following year, and my one regret is that this could not have been completed in 1978 so that we could have had an even larger increase in this coming year.
In the discussions about child benefit which I have had with Ministers in the context of the current arrangement between the Government and the Liberal Party, I have strongly urged that when increasing child benefit the Government should not abandon the additional payment for the first child of one-parent families. I am particularly pleased therefore that the Government have felt able to go along with that view, and not only to maintain but to double, from 50p to £1, the additional benefit. I do not think child benefit is the ideal means of dealing with the total problem of one-parent families; something separate and more extensive is necessary. But until that is provided I welcome the extension of the present arrangement. With the reservations expressed about the up-rating order and the level of inflation, we are happy that the House should approve these orders.
12.52 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord. Lord Banks, for their contributions. I know I have said it before, but I assure them that we enjoy and find their contributions on matters of this kind of great value. It is only a week or so ago that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State held a conference to which he invited all organisations and all shades of opinion,

651
and we had the benefit of Lady Young's right honourable friend from another place, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, who made a valuable contribution, as did Lord Banks. The noble Lord knows that we attach considerable importance to the views of experts outside our own Party, and I think he will agree that we have given a fair amount of time in discussing these matters with various individuals.
To return to the two points raised by Lady Young, with regard to what is going to happen if we are wrong in our supposition that inflation is going to fall, I can only say that I too have asked the same question, and quite recently. I must be perfectly frank and say that at the moment I do not have an answer, not because I have not got an answer but because there is no answer, and I do not think it would be helpful if I tried to hazard a guess. To be frank, I do not think that if I sat down and wrote for several hours I could say anything intelligent in my letter to her. This matter is in the forefront in the minds of my right honourable friend and other Ministers, but as yet no decision has been taken. I can only leave the noble Baroness with the thought that we are aware of the possibilities and that we are aware that if we are wrong there are bound to be repercussions, but beyond that none of us can go at this stage.
Baroness Young mentioned the question of school meals. Your Lordships will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently made a Statement to the effect that he was raising the limit below which parents would be required to pay for school meals. My understanding, from the inquiries we have been able to make so far—that Statement having been made only recently—is that it will mean that upwards of one-quarter of all school children taking school meals will not have to pay for their school meals. I do not think I can take the matter beyond that.
I take the point Lord Banks made in regard to the way in which we have dealt with child benefit. He has been consistent about this all along the line, and said not long ago that he could see no reason why we did not bring the whole lot in in one fell swoop. Of course he is right and we could have done so; but there were other considerations, and I see no reason why I should not say what those other
652
considerations were. We advocate a three-year phasing out to stagger the drop in take-home pay. The Government and the Labour Party, as your Lordships know, had detailed discussions with the trade union Working Party and this was part of an agreement. If we had brought this in in one fell swoop it would have meant that the take-home pay of the husband, the father, would have been substantially reduced, and to be frank it was not the right climate in which to do that. The only way we could do it is the way we have done it.
It means that under phase two of the child tax allowance, which will come into force in April 1978, a man with two children will have a reduction in his take-home pay of £1·09 a week, while a man with four children will suffer a reduction of about £2·01. It will not be easily accepted by some people, and if we had tried to do it in one fell swoop I think there would have been a good deal of difficulty, which by doing it this way I think we shall overcome.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
12.57 p.m.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Act 1977,

Redundancy Rebates Act 1977,

New Towns Act 1977,

Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1977,

Minibus Act 1977,

Licensing (Amendment) Act 1977,

Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977,

Control of Food Premises (Scotland) Act 1977,

Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977,

Rentcharges Act 1977,

Farriers (Registration) (Amendment) Act 1977,

Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977,

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1977,

653

British Linen Bank Order Confirmation Act 1977,

Fidelity Trust Act 1977,

International Planned Parenthood Federation Act 1977

London Hydraulic Power Act 1977,

London Transport Act 1977,

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council (Frankwell Footbridge) Act 1977,

West Midlands County Council Act 1977,

City of London (Various Powers) Act 1977.

[See col. 726.]

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL
12.59 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wade.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness]:
Lord HYLTON Lord HYLTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("who") to end of line 12 and insert ("might reasonably be expected to reside with him—")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the definition of a household, a point on which I touched very briefly at Second Reading. The effect of the Amendment is to restore the wording of the Bill in this respect to its original form. I submit that the present text contains considerable uncertainty. For example, there is no definition of the word "family" either in Clause 1 or in Clause 13; neither is there a definition of the words "as a member of …". We all know that different families have widely varying arrangements among themselves. The distinction between a member of a family and, say, a lodger may be valid in one case, and quite invalid in another. In addition, I am
654
informed that the law of Scotland has a different concept from the law of England as to what is a family.
I believe that the present text of the Bill is likely to lead to disputes in a similar kind of way to the family membership provision of the present law on the inheritance of agricultural tenancies. This is perhaps a point which will commend itself to my noble friends sitting on the Front Bench, whom I see later intend to move several new clauses to the Bill.
I come now to the second part of subsection (1)(a) which reads:
"… or in circumstances in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him …".
In my view this wording makes the housing authority prosecution, judge, and jury in any particular case. The wording of the Amendment, and of the original Bill, transfers what I would call the onus of reasonableness from the person to the housing authority. The authority will have a discretion in either case, whether or not the Amendment is accepted. But if the Amendment is accepted, the authority must exercise its discretion reasonably, and not arbitrarily, in accordance with the best traditions of British Government, of the common law, and I might add, of the late A. P. Herbert.
The Amendment has the further advantage of making the Bill more consistent. Clause 1(1) would come into line with Clause 1(4)(c), and with Clause 6(1), and with the Amendment to Clause 13, standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I do not claim that my Amendment removes all grounds for uncertainty but I suggest that it is considerably less uncertain than the present position, more in line with natural justice, and more consistent with the rest of the Bill. I hope that it will prove acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and to the Government, and that it will commend itself to your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for moving the Amendment. As the Peer responsible for the Bill in your Lordships' House, I should at the outset like to make three points on which I am sure there is general

655
agreement. First, the purpose of the Bill is to help to relieve homelessness to the greatest extent that we can, and therefore this is an important Bill. Secondly, we should like the Bill to be as clear and as simple as possible; but I recognise that it is a complex subject, and it is unavoidable that there are a large number of Amendments before us today. Thirdly, I recognise the problems of the local authorities and the limits imposed by the lack of resources which they may wish to have. Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I prefer the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and if the Committee were to agree my inclination would be to accept what is proposed, but it is important to get as large a measure of agreement as possible among your Lordships before altering Amendments made in the Commons. Therefore I feel that I ought to hear what other noble Lords have to say.
I want to make clear one point, on which I am sure we are all agreed. The practice of splitting families simply on grounds of homelessness must be stopped, and that is one of our aims. That should suffice for the moment, as I should like to hear the views of any other noble Lords who wish to discuss this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for what he has said regarding the Amendment and for explaining his point of view upon it. I regret that I take a different view from my noble friend Lord Hylton, in that we believe that the Amendment would extend the Bill rather too far. It brings back into play arguments which were very fully extended in Standing Committee in another place. The words "might reasonably be expected" as used in the Amendment, are absolutely crucial. This is a particularly important phrase which involves a matter of judgment which, it has been suggested, is undertaken by a local authority in the normal course of events. But the words can have other interpretations; they go very wide, and in our submission the Bill as presented to your Lordships would prove more satisfactory and more workable in relation to this clause. I understand that another place investigated the situation very carefully in Standing Committee, and on Report and Third Reading, and I believe that
656
on this matter the Bill should remain as it is.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, over this question and, frankly, I would have preferred the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. This matter was discussed in another place and my honourable friend there took the same view. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it would still be left to the local authority to decide whether people could reasonably be expected to live together, so there would still be an element of judgment involved. The Bill is the result of a consensus between its sponsors in another place and here, and the Opposition, with the Government trying to act as honest brokers, and so I should not want to jeopardise it over this proposed change of words. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to withdraw the Amendment.
1.9 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: I was anxious to hear the big guns before giving my view on the Amendment, which, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has been preferred by everyone who has spoken. So perhaps it is to him that one must appeal if one is to reach a consensus on the matter. This is one of several Amendments due to come before the Committee today, which seek, first, to make the proposed law rather clearer than at present drafted. If this law is not to cause disillusion and be brought into disrepute, it is very important that people on both sides of the fence (the local authority and the applicant for accommodation) should know, as far as possible, whether or not the duty bites.
The wording is as unclear as it could be. For a start, it is very difficult to understand. Leaving out the words:
"as a member of his family",
what the local authority is considering is this criterion:
"…any other person who normally resides with him … in circumstances in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him…".
Really, the average citizen or applicant or even local authority official trying to make sense of that wording would

657
surely get into a terrible tangle. This is quite apart from the more substantive point raised that it is not right, in legislation which seeks to impose a duty in certain defined circumstances, to include clauses which remove the matter from the ambit of duty into the ambit of discretion and give the authority a completely free hand to declare what it considers to be reasonable and what it considers not to be reasonable. In many cases, this will lead to such invidious views as: "I do not think it is reasonable for you to have your old mother living with you. She can go into a home." That sort of decision very easily will be made for people under this wording.
It may be that the Parliamentary draftsmen can find some middle ground which does not leave the Bill in this confused state. I hope that the spokesman for the Conservative Party will consider again whether his objection is really correct and reasonable and whether, in fact, the clause cannot be looked at again so that some better wording could be found.
Lord SANDYS: As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has specifically addressed his remarks to me, I would say—and perhaps, from this side of the House, it is the first occasion on which it has been said—that we are under restraints regarding the Parliamentary timetable and procedure. I see that the noble Lord is looking a little restive. If he wishes to interrupt, I hope that he will wait for a moment. There is a particular constraint here which the Government are under in regard to the timetable of this Bill.
I think it is unfortunate that we are taking the Committee stage in this House so very late in the Session. I should entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that there is a case for achieving a consensus of views on any subject—and housing, above all—which we discuss in this House or in the other place. However, it appears that at the present moment it might be a little difficult to consider this again. I should be prepared to reconsider, in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Hylton, were it not for the fact that our timetable is in this state, which is not of our making.
Lord HYLTON: In moving this Amendment I tried to present a reasoned case. My noble friend Lord Sandys then said
658
that he thought that my Amendment extended the Bill too far. He also said that he thought that the present text was more satisfactory. He did not attempt to say why. Surely, if we are going to have a consensus—and I am sure that this is desirable—he must try to present a reasoned counter-argument and not appeal to the clock and attempt to impose some kind of veto.
Lord SANDYS: It is very far from my intention to impose any sort of veto. I believe that there is a situation to which the noble Baroness has already referred, that there should be circumstances in which we should obtain a situation which does provide for exactly what is desired. I should suggest at this stage that as an appeal has been made to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Baroness and, indeed, by me, it may be for the convenience of the Committee and to the furtherance of this Amendment if my noble friend would withdraw it. We might, perhaps at Report stage, having had a joint discussion, reach a more satisfactory conclusion.
Lord HYLTON: Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Baroness whether they would entertain the suggestion made by my noble friend.
Lord WADE: So far as I am concerned, I should be happy that consultations should take place to see whether a modification could be agreed. The time is short but it may be possible to consider the matter between now and Report. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, thought fit to withdraw in those circumstances, I should not press the point myself.
Baroness BIRK: I cannot go beyond what I have said already. I think that it would be less than frank to lead Lord Hylton up the garden path thinking that there is a strong possibility of any change; but if the noble Lord. Lord Sandys, is prepared to speak to his "other half", as it were, about it, then I am quite happy about that. I am not prepared to go any further. My main objective is not to jeopardise this Bill.
Lord HYLTON: I cannot say that I find this situation entirely satisfactory, but in an attempt to reach a consensus and not to

659
hold up the Committee I will, on what has been said, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.26 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("or threats of violence").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and to speak also to Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is on a slightly different point, but no doubt it can be grouped with these two. The effect of the Amendment which I seek to move is to change the wording of Clause 1(2)(b) from its present form, which requires a local authority, if it is considering an application from someone who claims to be homeless because he or she is likely to meet with violence in the home, to take on the responsibility of determining, in the case of threats of violence being feared, whether the person in the home is likely to carry out the threats. My Amendment would lead to the clause reading simply,
"it is probable that occupation of it will lead to violence or threats of violence on the part of some other person residing in it".
One could take a purely semantic objection to the wording. As it reads, there are two halves to the present subsection (2)(b). A person is homeless, first, if he has accommodation but it is probable that
"occupation of it will lead to violence",
and, secondly, if there are threats of violence by someone
"likely to carry out the threats".
If there are threats of violence by someone who is likely to carry out those threats, it is probable that the occupation of the accommodation will lead to violence. As it stands, the second part of the clause referring to threats of violence adds nothing at all. But it is not semantics that forms the basic objection to the clause as it is. If local authority officials have to assess the likelihood of someone (no doubt, usually, the man in the house) carrying out threats of violence, this means that women are who homeless—women with children who are driven from their homes and who make application to the local authority—will
660
be subjected to an interrogation designed to find out whether violence is likely; that is, whether the person threatening violence is likely to carry out the threats.
What a humiliation it will be if a woman applying for accommodation has to show her bruises or prove some record of violence. As it is, local authority officials refuse to house women who are turned away from homes if they do not think that the violence is likely to take place. I and, no doubt, other noble Lords have been approached and written to by the National Women's Aid Federation regarding this clause. What they say deserves the closest attention:
"From our own past experience we are certain that local authorities will place their own interpretation on the clause and impose strict definitions. Will it mean that a battered woman will have to parade a black eye or broken arm in front of a housing official? It is imperative that a woman in fear of violence should not be forced to return home until she has suffered injury or an official thinks it likely that this will happen".
I do not see what the necessity is for the more complex wording that the clause now carries which was the result of an Amendment made on Report in another place. The test that there should be a probability of violence or threat of violence is a straightforward one and I cannot see it leading to any abuse. One must remember, in the case of people fleeing from a violent home, that it is an agonising experience. It is not one which is undertaken lightly; and if, added to it, there has to be an inquisition as to the likelihood of violence, it makes it worse. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: This raises the old question of getting the right balance of wording. It is a very difficult question. As I understand it, the Bill covers actual violence and threats of violence likely to be carried out. If I have understood the Amendment correctly, the Amendments in Lord Gifford's name would mean that a person would qualify as homeless if occupation of his accommodation was likely to lead to threats of violence irrespective of whether those threats were likely to be carried out. I hope I am being fair, but that is the way I understand it. This will get us into deep water where there are the threats of violence irrespective of whether those threats are likely to be carried out. It will make it very difficult for the local authorities.

661
May I digress for a moment? The noble Lord said that the Amendments can be grouped together in this discussion. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to hear that, so far as the Amendments in my name are concerned, they are drafting Amendments and I need say little about them. I shall move them when the time comes. They are simply a matter of improving the wording.
The main issue is this one which has just been raised. This is one of the advantages in this Bill: it recognises clearly for the first time in housing legislation the problems of women who leave the marital home because of violence. It makes clear that they are homeless and entitled to help from the housing authority. I am strongly opposed to any weakening of the Bill in that respect. The difficulty which was raised in the Commons and is before us now should face housing authorities in being satisfied about the probability of a threat.
To put it briefly, I fear that the Amendment before the Committee goes too far and raises difficult problems. I should also mention the fact that what we have in this Bill—I am not now speaking of the Amendment—will be helpful because there is to be a code of guidance. The fact that this is in the Bill will help in the notice that is taken of the code of guidance for authorities. To that extent it is a valuable part of the Bill as it stands. I have come to the conclusion that while it is difficult to arrive at the right balance of wording, the Committee will be wise not to accept the Amendment.
Lord GIFFORD: I have not had support for this Amendment and therefore do not propose to press it. But this much needs to be said on this Amendment and others which are to come: one of the difficulties in formulating the wording of a Bill on homelessness in this House is that none of us, I imagine, has actually been through the experience of having no home. Therefore some of us do not very well understand what that experience is like.
There are many women who are terrorised in the home by husbands who threaten to hit them if they do not do this, that or the other, and who frequently submit to those threats and do what they
662
are required to do. Eventually, it becomes intolerable and they leave the home and come to the local authority. They say: "I am being terrorised; I am being threatened with death or violence by my husband if I do not sleep with him or cook the dinner in such a way". The local authority official will say: "Has he ever hit you?" It may be that it was six months or a year previously that the last act of violence occurred. The man from the local authority will say: "I do not think that this man is likely to hit you; you can go back home". That is the type of instance which would be changed by the wording. Having given the warning, and, since there has not been support for the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("on the part of") and insert ("from").
The noble Lord said: As I have already pointed out, this is a drafting point. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("or") and insert ("such").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is in effect a drafting Amendment. It will bring the wording of subsection 2(4)(b) precisely into line with the wording used in Circular 18–74. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: I agree that this is a drafting point and am very willing to accept it.
Lord GIFFORD: In fact I do not think that it makes good sense. The redrafted clause says:
"… as a result of any emergency such as a result of flood, fire or any other disaster".
We will find that it does not improve the wording.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for saying he will accept this Amendment. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, that we can improve the wording. He will know that we are all under a certain amount

663
of pressure in drafting Amendments or looking at them. The intention is to get the wording as in the Circular. I will look at this point, but in the meantime I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.30 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 32, after ("of") insert ("youth,").
The noble Lord said: In the first place, I should like to offer the apologies of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who is unable to be present. He is very anxious about the Amendment which stands in our joint names but, unfortunately, he has a long-standing engagement which he was unable to cancel. The effect of this Amendment would be to place a specific obligation on housing authorities to assign priority need to homeless young people whom they decide are vulnerable, alongside the priority they will be obliged to afford to the vulnerable elderly and those who are vulnerable as a result of disability. One of our reasons for tabling the Amendment is that today is the second anniversary of the screening of the Yorkshire Television film, "Johnny, Go Home" which caused such great public concern about the grave risks which are run by young people who become homeless and are left on the streets. That concern has been widely shared in your Lordships' House and was strongly voiced in the Second Reading debate on this Bill last week by my noble friend Lord Soper, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I also added some comments on the same subject.
Replying to the debate last week, my noble friend Lady Birk spoke forcefully about the Government's own concern that these homeless people should be afforded greater access to accommodation by local authorities than they have been in the past. However, with due respect to my noble friend, she gave no assurance that young homeless persons could be specifically named under this Bill, and that is why I am moving this Amendment.
In the Standing Committee which considered the Bill in another place, an Amendment was tabled by Mrs. Millie Miller, M.P., to assign priority need under
664
Clause 1(a) to all homeless young persons under 21 who are unable to secure accommodation for themselves. Unfortunately, that Amendment was resisted by the sponsor of the Bill in the other place and by the Government, and it was withdrawn. Given the current financial constraints on local authority spending, such a widely-drawn definition would perhaps be unacceptable at the present time and our Amendment therefore proposes that priority need should be limited to those homeless young persons whom housing authorities consider to be vulnerable when they apply to them for help. It would be for an authority to exercise its judgment as to the degree of vulnerability of a young homeless applicant.
Having stressed the limited nature of the duty which the Amendment would impose, I should like to mention those groups of vulnerable young people who would be directly helped by this obligation. They would certainly include, first, young people discharged from residential child care who have no family ties and no home to go to or whose return to their families would cause them to be exposed to risks. Secondly, they would include young people ejected from their homes as a result of deeply-rooted disputes, so that the authority considers a return to their family, for the time being at any rate, to be out of the question. Thirdly, they would include homeless young people in need of short-stay accommodation in our big cities, who would otherwise be left entirely on the streets, and indeed also young homeless people who simply need emergency shelter where they can be advised and helped to secure something more long term. I referred in some detail to these matters when I addressed your Lordships on Second Reading.
There are no accurate statistics of the numbers of young people who fall into the trap of homelessness as a result of discharge from residential child care at the age of 18, with no proper arrangements having been made for the person's accommodation. The DHSS Working Group on Young Homeless People recognise, however, that this is one of the starting points for young homelessness. They said:
"Many young people who are homeless have spent considerable periods in institutions and have thus had little or no experience of normal home life."

665
As a matter of fact, recent figures have been given by the DHSS. Out of a total number of children in care for the year ended March 1976—I understand the figures were published only yesterday—there were 344 from families homeless through eviction, there were 1,004 from other homeless families and there were 5,158 from unsatisfactory homes. They say that the total cost of keeping all children in care for 1975 to 1976 was no less than £132 million. That is a very startling figure and it has to be carefully considered, particularly in the light of what we are discussing today.
Provision for residential care is, of course, the responsibility of social service authorities and the operation of the duty under this Amendment would require close co-operation between them and housing authorities. That is provided for in Clause 6. Some local authorities already seek to close this gap. For example, I understand that the London Borough of Camden Housing Committee sees itself as having a housing responsibility for young people who have been in care, and offers straight tenancies to such cases. But that practice, unfortunately, is unusual; our Amendment would go a long way to extend it.
It would also go a long way to preventing cases such as one which was reported this week by the Soho Project, a voluntary organisation in central London. A 17-year-old girl had been discharged from care by a London borough without any arrangements at all being made for her accommodation, even though it was known that she could not possibly return to her family. Within a few days, she was on the streets of the West End, but fortunately discovered the whereabouts of Centre Point, the voluntary night centre in Soho, which was able to refer her to the Soho Project for help with accommodation. She was lucky that, for her, things worked out that way.
The other group which would be helped by the Amendment are those young people who are thrown out of their homes as a result of deep-rooted family disputes, in which, in the opinion of the housing authority, there is unlikely to be a swift reconciliation, and who will therefore be left on the streets. This is a particularly serious social problem in some parts of our cities—for example,
666
among the West Indian communities. I do not want to exaggerate the problems, nor to underplay their complexity, because in many cases I understand that such disputes arise because the parents cannot find work and that this housing problem is closely related to the sadly high level of youth unemployment among the black communities.
My Amendment would give housing authorities power to provide accommodation for those young black people who they consider would otherwise be left open to rootlessness. It would help in a small way to prevent an even greater degree of alienation, on the part of unemployed black youngsters, than exists at present—and, Heaven knows! there is enough of that at the present time. It would also bring help to those who become homeless in local areas who, we now know, represent a much higher and mote worrying number of young homeless, than those depicted in "Johnny Go Home".
In last week's Second Reading debate in this House, both my noble friend Lady Birk and I raised the difficult problem, which we face in our big cities, of young people who leave home, perhaps in search of work, perhaps because they have been led to believe that that is how they can improve their circumstances, perhaps because they have been thrown out of their homes. Whatever the reasons, the fact is that in the centres and inner city areas of our great conurbations young homeless people are on the streets with no home—a very tragic position indeed.
The voluntary organisations which seek to help some of these young people—and I think I can speak in their name—are convinced that many more of them could be helped to find more permanent solutions to their needs if only there were an adequate supply of short-term accommodation from which they could start. The Government's own Working Group on Young Homeless People confirms this view in its recommendations. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill seeks to bring the needs of homeless people into the mainstream of housing supply. The need for short-term and emergency shelter for young homeless people is surely one of the most pressing needs and would be assisted if our Amendment were accepted.
Only this week we have been told by voluntary organisations in the West End

667
of London of more cases of young homeless people than I can mention here, who could have been saved unnecessary misery and risks if they had been able to turn to their local authority for emergency shelter. There were, for example, the three young people, aged between 17 and 19 years, who came down to London three weeks ago from the North-East of England. After several nights on the streets, followed by a few nights in a "squat" in a derelict building, they encountered the New Horizon youth centre in the West End but, so far, New Horizon has been unable to secure short-stay accommodation for them. They are still sleeping rough, and beginning to become mixed tip with the misuse of barbiturates.
Then there was the 16 year-old boy who came to London from the Midlands, hoping to find work. After finding it impossible to obtain accommodation for his first three nights, he sought help from a council housing aid centre, only to be told that he would have to find a suitable "squat". Fortunately, he found help from a voluntary organisation, but only after being told by the DHSS that they could not make him a payment of benefit for three weeks as he was classed as a school-leaver.
Your Lordships may ask how authorities would carry out the duty. Clause 6 allows housing authorities to request registered housing associations and social service authorities to share with them the carrying out of their functions. Given the experience of the voluntary sector in the needs of young homeless people, I would expect housing authorities to be especially keen to work closely with housing associations in carrying out the duty under this Amendment. The importance of the Amendment is that it places that key role squarely on a housing authority. The Amendment would, admittedly, place on authorities, this additional task, over and above the priorities enjoined on them in Circular 18/74. However, our case is that the saving made as a result of this duty would be very much greater in the long run, than the expenditure involved.
I would point out to my noble friend that all reports from the Government and from voluntary organisations show that
668
young people who are left homeless are very vulnerable to criminal activity, to social alienation and to personal deterioration. Inevitably this means that those who are not prevented from remaining homeless will become a heavy burden on our penal system, on our social services, on our welfare benefits system and on all other services of that nature. Faced with that choice, both in terms of the personal degradation in which we are leaving young people and in terms of the social cost, I move this Amendment not with the question "Can we?", but with the question "Dare we not?" I beg to move.
1.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I warmly welcome this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said everything that can be said about it, so I will not detain your Lordships by repeating any part of his speech. All I would say, as one who is associated with the 2 million or 3 million people in South London, is that it is the urgent hope of those concerned with young people that this Amendment should be accepted, not only because it is our moral duty, but because it is in our own self-interest. When I find myself in Brixton Prison seeing young people, I feel that so many of them would never have been there if only accommodation had been provided. They are there, because they were left homeless on the streets. If your Lordships go over the river and walk around the streets of Lambeth on any night, there they are—dozens of them. Go into the empty church outside Lambeth Palace on Christmas Eve, and you will find anything up to 500, many of them these homeless young people. So I urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Lord PARGITER: I wonder whether we can be told what will be the interpretation of this provision without this addition. The paragraph states:
"he or any person who resides or might reasonably be expected to reside".
Let us assume that the person himself is not liable to be rendered homeless. He may be living in one room. There may be other people entitled to reside with him, who are likely to be homeless because they are not able to reside with this person with whom they might reasonably

669
expect to reside. What is the duty of the housing authority? Is it to provide a home for the person who is living in one room, in order that they may accommodate those who are likely to be homeless, even though the person himself is not likely to be homeless? I am not quarrelling with the Amendment, but I should like an interpretation of what in those circumstances a housing authority is supposed to do. If an authority provides accommodation for someone who is reasonably entitled to live with someone else, that might be interpreted as not being appropriate unless he was able to live with the person concerned. I should like to know how this would be interpreted.
Lord WADE: I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say on that point of interpretation. But the main point is that, unfortunately, we must have priorities here. So far as this subsection is concerned, they at present include,
"old age, mental illness, or handicap or physical disability or other special reason".
The proposal is that included in the priorities should be those who are vulnerable as a result of youth. I recognise that this is a very important issue.
First, I should like to point out that under the Bill young people will be eligible for advice and assistance and that there is power, by order, for the Secretary of State to add to the priority groups. Furthermore, there is a provision for grants to the voluntary bodies which are concerned with homelessness. However, one comes back to the point of priorities, if one has to have them, and that is the difficulty which I envisage. I am not at all surprised that we have before us this Amendment; in fact, I expected it. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, have given us no cause to doubt their genuine concern for young people who leave home and cannot find themselves somewhere to live. Indeed, the point has been made by a number of your Lordships—it was made last week during the Second Reading debate—and I share the great concern. The question is, what we are to do so far as this Bill is concerned?
Let us be clear that, as the Bill stands, it marks an important step forward, even for single young people. It recognises clearly that the housing needs of homeless single people is a matter for the housing
670
authorities. The Bill provides positively that homeless single people are to be given advice and assistance, although I admit that it does not place them in the top priority group; they are not placed in the same category as those who are elderly or disabled or even, indeed, in the same category as pregnant women. However, I am not absolutely certain that housing need is the only problem so far as young people who have left home are concerned. We have to consider very carefully the implications of adding the single young, or even part of that category, to the priority groups. Very reluctantly I have to say that I believe that it would be a mistake to require authorities to undertake duties which they know they would be unable to fulfil. We know about the difficulties facing authorities, and we must enable this Bill to get off to a proper start. Moreover, the Bill follows the 1974 circular.
Perhaps regrettably, it is only in recent years that we have become acutely aware of an upsurgent demand for single person accommodation which has required a response from housing authorities. The causes are complex but the demand exists. The housing authorities have concentrated upon providing family accommodation, and I do not believe that we should criticise them for doing so. The point is, what should we do to overcome the problem? I could speak at length on this point. I do not, however, wish to detain the Committee because we know that there is a terrible problem of priorities. Any extension of the priority groups would require significant extra expenditure. As I have said, the housing authorities do not yet have adequate resources with which to help many single people in the positive way that would be required.
There is much more that I could say, but I believe that I should be preaching to those who are aware of the difficulties. We have the problem of where to draw the line and, rather sadly, I have to say that I do not see how we can extend the priorities at the moment—although power to extend them is contained in the Bill—to include those who are described here as vulnerable as a result of youth: young people who leave home to go to live in London and elsewhere. Unfortunately, at the moment I do not see how we can put them into the top priority group.
Baroness YOUNG: We on this side of the Committee have listened with very great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said. Also I have read what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark had to say during the Second Reading debate. We on this side of the Committee very much support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. This is a very difficult problem. Nobody wishes to be cruel or unkind to the young; we are all well aware that this is a great problem. I believe that I took down correctly what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Janner—that young people should be able to turn to their local authority for emergency shelter, which is the purport of the noble Lord's Amendment—and that the categories in the priority group should be extended to include youth. The answer to the noble Lord was given by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who said—and again I believe that I took down his words correctly—that if this Amendment is accepted local authorities would acquire priorities which they could not fulfil. These are the facts of the situation.
At Second Reading I raised the point that this Bill provides no new resources; there is to be no further expenditure of money. If local authorities are to acquire extensive new duties they will clearly need resources. It will not be kind to deceive people and lead them to believe that a piece of legislation can provide resources which it cannot provide. It is because I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has put the matter very well that we on this side of the Committee wish to support him.
1.57 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: When the noble Lord, Lord Janner, moved the Amendment, he referred to what I said at Second Reading. It is perfectly true that I said that I not only understand but deeply appreciate and share the concern over homeless single people. I accept that the Bill makes no specific reference to single people. However, I went on to say that it would be quite wrong to conclude that the Bill ignores single people. I was speaking then about all single people.
It is not only young single people who are at such risk today. Under the present system there is no mandatory duty to
672
house them or, indeed, to house anybody who is in the homeless category. Single people, of whatever age, come very low down the list, with families naturally having a very much higher priority. Therefore single people generally are greatly helped by the Bill. For example, pregnant women are named and also the old and the disabled, many of whom will be single. The Bill provides for priority needs, including those who are vulnerable for special reasons, and they must certainly include some of the young homeless.
With respect, I take issue with the right reverend Prelate regarding his reference to the homelessness of young people who come out of prison. This is a simplistic view. Homelessness can be a contributory factor, but it is not the beginning and end of a problem which goes much wider and deeper. When we speak about the young homeless, this is one of the problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have said, if the young homeless were added as a priority group to the Bill in the way that this Amendment proposes, local authorities would have to take on the housing needs of any young single homeless person who came along. With resources as limited as they are at present, this must be to the detriment of a number of other groups of people. I do not like to say so, but the situation is that we cannot yet afford those resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, referred to the cost of children in care and to the problems of young people who come out of prison. The noble Lord asked what happens to them. Many of these young people would be unable to fend for themselves as fully-fledged tenants or even lead an independent existence in hostels. It is impossible to quantify this problem. Again, it is quite clear that the problems of the young are not simple. Just putting a word into a Bill when we know at the moment we do not have the resources would, I think, be misleading. Although the Amendment and the motivation is well-intentioned, it could be extremely misleading. What is important is that the right advice and help should be made available to the young and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said, this Bill ensures that. This is certainly something they need first. Probably it is what many of them need above all. It has never been

673
put into a piece of legislation. Indeed, with regard to one of the examples given by my noble friend Lord Janner about the young woman going to Centre Point, as he himself said, it was by chance that she found some refuge at all. Therefore advice and help would have been extremely useful in that connection.
So it is not a question of taking a hard arbitrary line or not wanting to include the single young; it is just that at this time and in this Bill is is quite impossible. Nevertheless, it will be open to the Secretary of State in the future to add the young to the list of priority categories. That is extremely important and should be borne in mind, and it is something on which the voluntary organisations will obviously keep a keen eye.
It will also be open to a housing authority under the Bill to treat the young as a priority category if it is of the opinion that it has the resources and sufficient reason for doing so. It does not say that an authority must not do it. We are laying down the priority categories. Perhaps I may answer my noble friend Lord Pargiter in the context of this Amendment. If a vulnerable youth is living with someone in need, the youth would be included as someone who is vulnerable and therefore would be considered homeless.
It is with regret that I must ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment. I must say quite frankly that, if the Amendment were to be pressed and accepted, the chances of the Bill reaching the Statute Book would be extremely hazardous, and it would mean that we would lose what I frankly believe is a very big step forward in duties put on housing authorities to help the homeless. We should lose the whole Bill, because of the question of time; it would have to go back to the Commons, where there are equally divided views. For that reason I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like her to answer one question. At line 33 on page 2 of the Bill, the conclusion of subsection (4)(c), there are the words "or other special reason". Would I be correct in assuming that the
674
type of youth who was manifestly vulnerable—some of the cases to which my noble friend Lord Janner has referred, or those to which the right reverend Prelate has referred—would be eligible for inclusion for consideration under the terms "other special reason"?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, most definitely they would be if the local authority accepted them under that category. That is why those words are in the Bill. It can cover other people who are not on the list, but that is different from making them a priority category in themselves.
Lord JANNER: I am very sad about this position because, quite frankly, do not think that those who oppose the Amendment are living in a real world. This deals with a terribly serious social problem and it involves at present very considerable expenditure on the part of the Government—whichever Government may be in power—which is much greater than any possible expenditure that would be incurred by granting what we have asked for. We are not asking that the other priorities should not exist. We are saying that, if a local authority is considering what priorities it should take into consideration, the priority I have referred to and which my noble friends and other Members of this House, and indeed Members of another place, have been speaking about, is that we cannot and we dare not allow this erosion into our youth by making many people—as a result of our own inaction—into criminals who in the generations to come may well become a very serious menace to society because of our neglect. All that we are asking for is that the councils should not have the excuse of saying: "It is all very well asking for this. Of course there is provision in a very exceptional case that we should give consideration to it, but it does not come on the named list of priorities".
Let me say quite frankly that, although there are many councils who not only have heads but hearts and who would consider this kind of application sympathetically, there are many who on the other hand would take it as an excuse, if they were not in the list of priorities, to refuse to grant the accommodation that is necessary for young people. I have seen much of this among young people.

675
I know what happens in the courts. My wife has been a magistrate for 40 years and this kind of thing is very disturbing to her and to all magistrates. What are we to do? Are we really to say to a council, "You must not regard this as a priority, but as an exceptional priority"?
Baroness BIRK: For the time being.
Lord JANNER: Yes, that is it. Is the noble Baroness prepared to say that on behalf of the Government she will give a strong intimation—and, if I may say so, on behalf of the Opposition, too—that this matter must be given very careful consideration in the future? Of course there is only one argument against pressing the Amendment to a vote and respect it. I do not like it, but I suppose we have to face up to one point. It has been emphasised on both sides, and I suppose that what they are saying is that it is better to have something rather than nothing.
Baroness BIRK: No!
Lord JANNER: That is really what the noble Baroness is saying. I shall not enter into another argument now; it is much too late in the day and too late in the Session. I appreciate that. I do not want to stop anyone, because the categories of people who have been referred to are important. But all we should be asking the authorities is that, when they are considering these matters, they should not say that these people are second class, as though they were saying "second-class citizens"—only deserving second-class priorities.
Baroness BIRK: That is not so.
Lord JANNER: There are two sets of priorities here. One is the priority which we call a priority and the other is what I would describe as a second-class priority. But who am I to stand in the way of any of my noble friends or other noble Lords who want the rest of the priorities to stand, which obviously would not be the case if an Amendment were forced to a vote today.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I would not say they have got us. What are we talking about? Youth. What is youth? An 18 year-old is now a full adult by law, and a 16 or 17 year-old can get married, whether it be a shotgun marriage or a
676
"broomstick" marriage, or whatever you call it. That is a "special reason". Clause 1(4) states:
"For the purposes of this Act a homeless person … has a priority … when the housing authority are satisfied that he is within one of the following categories …".
One of the categories is the "special reason". A couple who have to get married at 16 or 17 are youthful enough, but their house would be there. If a person is 18 years old he is an adult. I am not going into the Lobby for this. I want the noble Baroness to say that, if my interpretation is right, we have answered the point about youth.
Lord STOW HILL: If I may, I would like to say a very few words in support of this proposed Amendment. As I listened to the discussion, I could not help remembering the discussion we had on the Criminal Law Bill. A young person can be sentenced only to not more than six months' imprisonment or not less than three years' imprisonment. There is a provision in our legislation that any other treatment available to deal with him must be used first. Borstal is such a treatment. Borstal facilities are hopelessly overloaded. Ought one not to bear those arguments in mind when one considers the Amendment at present before the Committee?
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked what is a judge to do who has before him a young person who obviously ought not to go to prison for three years but equally obviously ought not to be limited to prison for six months; there is no room for him in any borstal accommodation, so what is to happen to him? Surely we should consider those arguments very closely indeed in conjunction with the present question, namely, whether we should, as it were, pay special attention to the situation of young persons at risk because they are young. I submit that the two problems really hang together. It is all part of this desperately difficult social fight that we are having to improve our society. It seems to me that it is all really one question. Therefore, I should like to support the Amendment which is before the Committee to the effect that special consideration should be given to the situation of young persons.
Lord JANNER: I am placed in additional difficulty after having heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Both noble friends.
Lord JANNER: I will come to my noble friend Lord Davies, in a moment. As I said before, we have an undertaking, which appears to come from the official spokesmen on all sides of the Committee, that proper consideration will be given to this very important problem, even though the word "youth" is excluded. If I withdraw the Amendment, it will be excluded merely because of the question of time. It may very well be that some of us who cause concern to the powers that be by introducing Private Members' Bills may see how far the injunction to concern themselves with considering the youth problem to be given by the authorities will be carried into effect. If it is not, we may be sure of one thing. The voluntary organisations who are doing a dedicated and wonderful job—there is no question about that—-will no doubt want to consult us as to whether a Bill of that nature should be presented.
I quite understand the point of view of my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek; I do not agree with him. We are already talking of the elderly people. He often refers to his own grandmother, who would not under any circumstances need this kind of aid, and he is thinking of other grandmothers I am quite sure. But it does not detract from the fact that this is an extremely important problem, and it is with hesitation, reluctance and a heavy heart that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("(6) Notwithstanding subsections 4 and 5 above, a homeless person or a person threatened with homelessness shall not be deemed to have a priority need for accommodation if he is a gypsy within the meaning of section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and to invite your Lordships now to think about gipsies—though perhaps I should first ask whether we are going to have dinners tonight—gipsies whose housing problems I think everyone would agree are of a rather different curious and unique kind. The first thing I need to say is that we ought
678
not to have to be having to debate this at all because the other place debated it very thoroughly, at col. 1684 of their debate at the Report stage, after which it would seem that an Amendment more or less on these lines was adopted. That is recorded at col. 1702. But, however hard one looks at our version of the Bill, no such thing appears, so something has gone wrong in the wash, and it is no good asking how it can occur or whose fault it is. We have therefore put down this Amendment in order to secure another debate and either amend the Bill or get an assurance from the noble Baroness which will save us from having to amend the Bill, which might perhaps be better.
Perhaps I had better read the definition of "gipsies" as given in the Caravan Sites Act to remind your Lordships of the definition:
"'gypsies ' means persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or of persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such".
There is a case for saying that those people should not be the long-term responsibility of the housing authority, which is the main provision of this Bill. The reason for that is because, if they were, it would involve a duplication with the existing duty of county councils—the housing authorities are district councils—to provide sites for gipsies under Section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act to which I have just referred. Therefore, unless this Bill is amended, a gipsy family wanting to find a site for its van could present itself to the housing authority and claim that the housing authority has a specific duty towards them by virtue of Clauses 1 and 4 of this Bill. The housing authority would be obliged to act, and the county council, if it did not have any vacant pitches, would be unable to help. I feel that the Committee would agree that that would not be satisfactory. Hence, this Amendment.
However, I see that under subsection (6)(a), which we have just been discussing, it is open to the Secretary of State to "specify further categories" of people who could be brought in, so, if a change is required subsequently, it could be made. Also, he has power under Clause 9 to give guidance to authorities which, I suppose, would become a code of practice in operating the legislation and

679
he could say something about how gipsies are to be handled there. Therefore, for my part I should be happy with an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the Secretary of State will use one or other of these two powers to make sure that the anomaly which I have just described will in some way be overcome, or she may be disposed to accept the Amendment. I shall be interested to hear how she proposes to deal with the matter.
2.19 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: First of all, I should like to point out that there was an error in the Commons Hansard. The Government resisted the Amendment and it was then withdrawn. That has now been confirmed by the Commons Table Office which is quite clear about the matter. There has been a considerable degree of misunderstanding as regards the question of gipsies. Obviously, the district councils fear that they will be forced by the Bill to provide sites for gipsies if they have a priority need. The Bill does not require district councils to provide gipsy caravan sites, nor does it relieve the county councils of their obligation under the 1968 Act. It seems to me improbable that gipsies would use the provisions of the Bill to obtain housing accommodation, or that they would want to do so. On the other hand, it would be quite unjustifiable for me or anyone else to deny the benefits of the Bill to those in need who wish to settle. The Amendment implies that gipsies should be victimised and thus condemned to a life of wandering. I think that such discrimination against a particular group would be quite wrong, and I am sure that the Committee would agree with me.
I should also add that the Amendment itself would be defective as regards Scotland, where the Caravan Sites Act 1968 does not apply. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the clarification for which he asked, will be taken up in the code of guidance. Of that I can assure him. No burden will be put on the district councils. On the welfare side, the responsibility will remain with the county councils, who are responsible at present. I take it that the Amendment was really tabled to clarify the situation and, having agreed
680
very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that we shall all be here until dinner time unless we get on. I hope that what I have said will satisfy him.
Lord AVEBURY: On behalf of my noble friend, who I think has gone to have his breakfast, may I say a few words about the Amendment and endorse what the Minister has put before the Committee. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has studied the report by Mr. John Cripps of the workings of the 1968 Caravan Sites Act. It is a recently published report and it made some reference to the movement of gipsies between caravan sites and ordinary bricks and mortar housing. Mr. Cripps referred, for example, to evidence submitted to him by the Dover District Council which he said appeared to be repeated widely elsewhere, to this effect:
"There are considerable numbers of gipsies both settled and travelling, and also some who live a kind of compromise life in houses during the winter and travelling during the summer. Others live in a house for a while, give it up and return to the travelling life for a time and then perhaps go back to house dwelling again".
I shall not read the rest of the quotation, but that gives the kind of picture that exists in that area. It is the one with which I was familiar in the part of outer London which I represented for a number of years. The major site in Corke's Meadow was developed for housing in the early 1960s. Some of the gipsies who were living there went into permanent houses, but not all of them remained permanently living in those houses because they found it very difficult to get used to them. We had a settled community of gipsies in the village of Farnborough dating back to the latter part of the 19th century, and even earlier than that in some cases. Therefore, it has been a well known phenomenon for a number of years that gipsies move in and out of settled accommodation. That is likely to continue in future, and arrangements would have to be made for it.
If the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, were accepted, there would not be any circumstances whatever in which a gipsy could have priority need for accommodation. I do not think that that would be a satisfactory state of affairs. It certainly would be contrary to the policy of the Department

681
as laid down in the circular which was issued following the receipt of the Cripps Report. I should like to refer noble Lords to paragraph 39 of the Department of the Environment Circular No. 28/77. The Secretaries of State say:
"Although there is evidence that for the foreseeable future most gipsies will wish to continue to live in caravans either on long stay sites or moving from one transit site to another, local authorities should not overlook the possibility of enabling those who wish to do so, to settle in more permanent forms of accommodation".
Anything that would hinder that process—as this Amendment would be likely to do, if gipsies wish to move into settled accommodation voluntarily—I emphasise that we are not talking about compulsion—should be resisted. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I should feel rather unhappy if gipsies were given any priority in the allocation of houses. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lady Birk would not wish me to feel unhappy. I have no romantic ideas about gipsies:
"My mother said that I never should Play with the gipsies in the wood".
Gipsies are people who do not normally look upon a housing estate as their normal abode. They are nomadic; they like to travel about. They like to live in their caravans; they have caravans and those caravans are their homes. If I have to contrast their entitlement to housing with that of the ordinary artisan who is working in the local factory and who has been paying rates and income tax for all the years of his employment, then I think that the ordinary artisan in the district should have priority over the gipsies.
As a rule gipsies do not pay much in rates, but they may pay them if they are on a county council site. However, they do not pay much income tax. I believe that it would cause grave disquiet among the ordinary inhabitants of a district if they were overlooked in their application for housing in favour of people who have caravans of their own, who are nomadic, who wander about from one part of the country to another and who do not have a settled habitation in the district with which the council is concerned. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I hope
682
that we shall not give gipsies priority over ordinary—I shall not say "respectable"—industrial inhabitants of a district.
Lord SANDFORD: It has been interesting to hear the varied views of noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Avehury, mentioned, I have pages of extracts from the very valuable report of Mr. Cripps, but as I am as keen as the rest of the Committee to get back for dinner, if not for tea, I did not deploy them. This Amendment was certainly not designed to condemn people to a life of wandering on the roads; it could not do so because gipsies are, by definition—and I read it out—people who have chosen that way of life for themselves. Nevertheless, I am quite satisfied—as I indicated that I would be—with the noble Baroness's description of how her right honourable friend intends to handle the matter. I think that that would probably be better than this Amendment. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert (", made after appropriate consultations,")
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment perhaps I could speak also to Amendment No. 9.
Baroness BIRK: It would be helpful if the noble Lord could also take Amendment No. 61.
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, I should have mentioned Amendment No. 61; I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. These are essentially drafting Amendments. Clause 1(7) at present requires the Secretary of State before making an order to alter the definition of "priority need" in any way, to consult such associations representing relevant authorities as he considers appropriate. These Amendments would substitute a provision that any such order should be made after "appropriate consultations". The Amendment to Clause 13 inserts into the interpretation clause a definition of what is meant by "appropriate consultations".
As, in its present form, Clause 1(7) does not limit the consultations which

683
may be undertaken to consultations with associations, the definition which I now propose explicitly includes consultations with any such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The Secretary of State is thus obliged to hold those consultations, and those consultations are to be with such local authority associations or other persons as he considers appropriate. Indeed, the definition would also cover consultations which I believe are referred to an Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which will be dealt with later. Therefore, I hope that the House will be able to accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.32 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to ask a question for clarification. If the answer is not immediately available I shall quite understand and shall be perfectly happy to receive a written answer. However, as I do not know to whom to address my question, I shall address it to the noble Lord, Lord Wade. In Clause 1(2)(c), am Ito understand that a local authority will have fulfilled its obligations in the case of either a caravan or a boat if it provides an alternative site for that caravan or a mooring for the boat and that it will not have to rehouse the occupants of either in a house?
Lord AVEBURY: Would the noble Baroness please repeat that question?
Baroness YOUNG: Under Clause 1(2)(c), I should like to know whether a local authority has fulfilled its obligations if it provides an alternative site for a caravan or an alternative mooring for a boat so that the families involved are not homeless, rather than providing them with a house? That is my question.
I realise that time is passing. We are trying to put a self-denying ordinance on
684
ourselves on the length of our remarks and it would be in the interests of the staff if we could speed up the proceedings. Indeed, that would be to the benefit of everyone.
Baroness BIRK: The answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is, Yes.
Lord HYLTON: I should like to make two very brief requests of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, concerning the guidance circular to be issued. On the question of violence and threatened violence within families, could the circular make it clear that, where there is doubt—and there will often be doubt—the benefit of the doubt should, whenever possible, be given to the complainant? My second point concerns the age group from 16 to 18. We have heard a great deal about their problems and special difficulties. Could it be made clear in the circular that they are particularly vulnerable—their status being unknown and uncertain?
Baroness BIRK: I shall note the noble Lord's points and make sure that they are considered when the circular is prepared.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preliminary duties of housing authorities in cases of suspected homelessness, etc.]:
2.35 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble Lord said: Essentially, this is an Amendment to delete from the Bill the reference to persons becoming:
"homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally".
A number of similar Amendments in my name appear later on in the Bill.
We are dealing with one of the most serious of the important issues that arise in the Bill. My belief is that this Amendment represents a touchstone for the resolve of Parliament on the Bill. If all we are doing on the Bill is a little bit of window-dressing—that is, making it appear that we are expressing a great deal of concern for the homeless and exhorting local authorities to recognise their

685
responsibility—then the present wording can stay. But, if we really want to help the people who are at present being turned away by local authorities, it is my submission to the Committee that this reference to intentional homelessness has to be omitted.
Many of your Lordships have read and studied the invaluable briefing material that has been represented to us by the Combined Committee of Charities. These are organisations which have experience of dealing with the problems of homelessness, and their experience cannot be ignored. The most recent briefing sets out a number of case histories of persons who at the moment are not provided for by local authorities.
What sort of cases are they? They are cases of people, whether private tenants or council tenants, who get hopelessly behind with their rents; of people who, for one reason or another, cannot keep up with mortgage payments and are evicted by a mortgage company. They are people who, in the intolerable stress of living in cramped quarters with members of their family or their in-laws, quarrel and part. They are families who are evicted for being a nuisance or an annoyance to their neighbours. They are exactly those families about whom heartless local authorities have said, "No, we shall not house you. We think that it is your own fault that you have become homeless. You did not have to default on your rent; you did not have to pick a quarrel with your mother-in-law; you should not have left your husband."Or—to paraphrase the words of a later Amendment defining homelessness with which I shall deal in due course— "You have committed a deliberate act; the consequence is that you are without a home, and we shall not help you."
It is those families in respect of which the present wording of the Bill, with its reference to "intentional homelessness" gives a loophole—an excuse or a reason—to local authorities to carry on the same practice and continue to be niggling about the way in which they fulfil their obligations. There is a very serious issue here. I believe that those who have supported the insertion of this criterion of "intentional homelessness" in the Bill have the old image of the deserving poor in mind. They are thinking of those who become homeless because of some
686
unavoidable calamity or catastrophe. That is not really the kind of case about which we are talking in the Bill.
Homelessness is about poverty and people who are entrapped in poverty do not always meet their financial obligations, cannot always pay their rents, do not always behave themselves with the maximum of courtesy and restraint. In my judgment, and in the judgment of those very charities which have pressed for its passage, the Bill will be virtually useless if it permits local authorities to continue to say, as they now do, "No, it is your fault and we shall not help you."
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in his speech on Second Reading of this Bill spoke of the need to be motivated by a sense of compassion. It is precisely on this issue of so-called intentional homelessness that compassion is most needed. We must recognise that among those who will be seeking help under this Bill are people who have, in the words of the Amendment, committed these deliberate acts in consequence of which they are homeless. The inclusion of this provision is brought about because it is suggested that there is likely to be widespread abuse of the law if the law were passed as the Bill was originally presented to the House of Commons. It is suggested that large numbers of people, families, will render themselves homeless for the dubious benefit of gaining local authority homeless families' accommodation. Of course, it is a dubious benefit because in many cases the accommodation will be poor.
One would expect that those who talk about such abuse would present evidence to Parliament that such abuse is happening. One knows that in a great many areas, I believe some 60 per cent. of districts, local authorities are observing the exhortations of Circular 18/74; they are in fact taking upon themselves the obligation of housing those who are homeless. One would expect, if their good will had been massively abused, that there would be evidence of it, but both in another place and here those who are putting forward the intention clause have put forward no such evidence at all. I would remind the Committee that the circular itself, a Conservative Government circular, recommends that even if homelessness appears to be self-inflicted the obligation to house a family should be taken on.
I think it is right, since all these Amendments are grouped together, that in moving my Amendment I should make my comments on Amendment No. 59 to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in which she seeks to introduce a definition of "intentionally homeless". I hope I am in order in addressing myself to that Amendment now and not some hours later at the end of the debate when it comes in its place. If this Amendment is designed to make the definition tighter to include only those cases of abuse, it does nothing of the kind. Amendment No. 59 is going to make it worse still. What it says is that it intentionally means if a person,
"deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation …".
It is not a question of motive but a question of consequence; objective consequence. That will do exactly what I have said it will do: give local authorities the excuse to say of anyone whose conduct they do not approve of, "It was your own fault". Subsection (2) has the same criteria.
"… if he deliberately does or fails to do anything the likely result of which is that he will be forced to leave accommodation …".
The wording is very bad. It includes anyone who does not pay the rent. If you do not pay your rent the authority that wants to be niggling will say that the likely result is that you are going to be forced to leave in due course, and therefore any rent defaulter will be refused accommodation. Subsections (3) and (4) do not make it any better, particularly subsection (4) which appears to allow authorities to say, "It is reasonable for you to go back to one room with your quarrelling in-laws, because of the housing shortage in this area".
I hope, whatever happens to my Amendment, that those who are sponsoring the "intentional" Amendment No. 59, and those who support it, and perhaps the Government Parliamentary draftsmen, will think again about that particular wording. My present view is that it is not in fact possible to introduce a definition of "intentional" which does not leave the loophole which I have outlined. I shall listen carefully to my noble friend Lady Birk and to others who support the "intentionally homeless" provision to
688
learn from them precisely what sort of cases they have in mind. As at present, I would urge the Committee to delete it absolutely from the Bill. I beg to move.
2.46 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee, as we are embarked on a debate on this subject of intent within the meaning of this Bill, if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 22, 48, 59, and 64. They all cover this same point. In doing so may I express my thanks both to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to the officials of her Department for the help I have received in the drafting of these particular Amendments.
May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that in moving my Amendment neither I nor any of my colleagues would accept that we in any sense lack compassion because we have not followed him down precisely the road he is going. I hope that he will not make that kind of accusation either to me or to my colleagues in connection with this Bill. We are attempting to reach what I think will be regarded as a fair compromise between those who support Lord Gifford's view and those in local authorities who will be required to work this particular piece of legislation.
I do not think that everybody who is homeless is a scrounger. Far from it. But the fact remains that in the Bill as originally drafted it would have been possible for someone—and in fact I quite accept the case that has been quoted by not paying his rent, to have made himself homeless. Under one of the provisions in the 1968 Rent Act a landlord has the right to repossess his property for non-payment of rent Under those circumstances someone could have become homeless and could have found himself at the top of the council waiting list, or rehoused as a priority case. None of us in this Committee, or anywhere else, is in a position to judge whether that person's case was better or worse than that of others on the housing list, but the effect of it would have been that that particular person would have come to the top of the list.
These Amendments are moved as a result of the discussions which my honourable friend Mr. Rossi had in another place.

689
They have the effect of rewriting a large section of the Bill, but I think do it in much better form than was originally proposed in another place. I am grateful for the help and advice that I also have received from my honourable friend Mr. Rossi.
"Intent" is defined in Amendment No. 59, which provides a new clause to follow Clause 12. The new clause is as follows. Subsection (1) provides that:
"a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available … and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy".
This would apply, for example, to someone who gave up a tenancy, or sold a house, or refused to pay rent. I make it clear that it would not apply to a battered wife who left a marital home, because it would not have been reasonable for her to have so remained in that home. Subsection (3) makes clear that if a person was unaware of any relevant fact, his act or omission is not to be regarded as deliberate. For example, a person might not pay his rent because he could not afford to do so being unaware that he was entitled to a rent allowance or a rent rebate. Subsection (4) explains that in deciding whether it would have been reasonable for someone to remain in his accommodation, the authority may take into account the general housing conditions of the area, and this in itself should discourage queue jumpers.
I hope these Amendments will commend themselves to the House. We have in moving them deleted all references to a homeless person being able with advice or assistance himself to secure accommodation, and that does not cease to be available for his occupation, so the much criticised means test provision has been completely deleted. I feel that this is a reasonable compromise. What we have said is that those who are described as intentional cases will not get permanent housing accommodation but will be eligible for temporary housing accommodation and, in this way, we on this side of the Committee have gone as far as we can, in co-operation with the local authorities, to try to find a workable way round our difficulties.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am very concerned about the Bill in that if we do not get it by 4.30 p.m. we will not get it at all. I have listened with interest to the rough formula of a compromise and I should like to know from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether her honourable friend in another place accepts the arguments which she has put forward. If he does then perhaps other noble Lords who feel the way I do about the Bill will not take part in the debate in order not to delay its progress.
Baroness YOUNG: The Amendments I am moving have the support of my honourable friend Mr. Rossi and, as I understand it, they have the support of the Government and I hope they will commend themselves to the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
Lord WADE: It might be of help to the Committee if I say that it was my intention to accept the Amendments when they were moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I hope it will save the time of the Committee to have that information.
Lord GIFFORD: I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will recognise that there is a great difference between somebody who does not pay rent with the express intention and motive of getting an advantage under the Bill and somebody who does not pay rent because he is crippled with debts and obligations of any kind and with no thought of getting any advantage under the Bill. Does she believe that both of those cases are covered by her proposed definition?
Baroness YOUNG: I think I have made the position clear. If a person is unable to pay the rent and fails to do so because he did not know he was eligible for a rent rebate, a rent allowance or some other provision that could have enabled him to pay the rent, he is covered by the Bill. The person who is not covered is the person I described who knowingly declines to pay the rent and to whom the landlord says, "I shall take you to court", to which the tenant replies, "Very well, go to court", and the landlord gets a possession order and

691
the tenant then says, "The local authority must rehouse me". He is not covered by the Bill.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and in doing so I apologise to your Lordships because other engagements prevented me from being here until quite late in the day. Obviously the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is as compassionate as anybody else; I always think that women are more compassionate than men and that young women are more compassionate than old men. So do not let it be thought that I am accusing her of any lack of compassion.
When all is said and done, my strong impression is that the organisations representing battered wives will not be at all satisfied with her suggestions. Obviously she has given much thought to them, but one is bound to ask why there must be a compromise. Is it because of the timetable, because we must do something at the end of July which we would not do at any other time of the year? Are we trying to follow some course of expediency? I therefore support Lord Gifford and ask whether there is any necessity for a compromise.
Baroness BIRK: The answer to my noble friend Lord Longford is that there is necessity for a compromise. This Private Member's Bill has emerged after a great deal of discussion as a compromise between the sponsors of the Bill, the Opposition and the Government and for that reason, as with any compromise, not everybody will be satisfied with it. I am not, I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is or that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is. But unless we get on with the Bill quickly we will not finish the Committee stage—it is down for Report next week—and there will be no Bill.
What are the options? Do we accept something which, I admit, after very deep thought and soul-searching, I honestly and personally believe to be worth while? There were moments at the beginning, when the Bill first reached your Lordships' House, when I wondered whether there was too much about it that I personally found would be bad and would wreck the Bill. I now feel—and we are here discussing Amendments at the heart of
692
the Bill—that with the deletion of the provision which would have involved means testing the Bill has been improved enormously. So far as the intention clause is concerned, speaking personally I should probably have preferred not to have it in the Bill, and I believe that many others feel the same way. Nevertheless, it is simply aiming to catch those people who are trying to buck the system at the expense of others on the housing list and other homeless.
If there are people—people in all parties; it is not just members of the Opposition Party who take this view but members of the Government in another place and members of the Liberal Party—who feel so strongly about the Bill, then I feel that we must make this compromise. And now, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, acknowledged—if he did not, he should have done—the onus has been removed by this Amendment from the applicant to the local authority, and that makes a tremendous difference.
Lord Gifford also said there was no mention of motive. I could not agree with him because it specifically refers to a person becoming homeless intentionally if he "deliberately does or fails to do" anything. "Deliberately means that one's motive is deliberate. I do not believe this will apply to very many people. There is the added safeguard that under the Bill now the authority is required to give written reasons for refusal. This means that the applicant has the opportunity to approach his local councillor or Member of Parliament, or to publicise the matter; and that safeguard is built in.
As for the question of rent arrears, we intend in the code of guidance to advise authorities how to approach the problem of rent arrears, which, incidentally will have a much wider spread effect than just this Bill is concerned. One reason why rent arrears often build up is because no help is given or action taken early enough to get at the problem of the particular tenant. One must therefore get in early. It is also essential that there should be co-operation between the housing authorities and the social service authorities. It is also now clearly stated in the Bill that, even in a case where the authority takes the view that there has been a deliberate intention, there is no question of people being put out on the streets.

693
They have to be housed for a reasonable period until the case has been sorted out, or until they can find something else.
Since Second Reading and Committee stage in this House, there have been intensive consultations and discussions between those of us here and in another place who are concerned to try to get the best compromise we can. I must say quite frankly that this is the result of those consultations. We must accept it with a good grace, give it at least a chance and monitor it. If there are the kind of results which my noble friend Lord Gifford suggests, then I should certainly be with him in taking immediate action, but let us see how it works out. The voluntary organisations, the local authorities, as well as individuals like himself who are concerned and interested, have a chance to see how it works out, and if there are some of the awful effects that are feared, I am sure there will be enough people in this House and in another place who will be absolutely adamant about getting the Bill changed. I shall certainly be among them.
Lord AVEBURY: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade and my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Ross, the Promoter of the Bill, I should like to confirm everything that the noble Baroness has said regarding the convoluted negotiations which have led to this compromise, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has described as either fair or reasonable, to which I would add the word "practicable." We have arrived at a situation where, if we do not accept this compromise, we shall have nothing at all.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that even if he does not like this solution, half a loaf is better than no bread. From everything that the noble Baroness has just said he can see that what has been achieved is considerably more than window-dressing. For instance, there has been the abolition of the means test, the provision for a report in writing and the requirement that the local authority shall offer temporary accommodation even to people made homeless as a result of their deliberate intentions. I hope that the noble Lord will give the Bill a chance to work. Despite the remaining doubts of the charities, which everybody has read about with great
694
interest and concern, I believe that an attempt should be made to make Amendment No. 59 work, and I implore the Committee to let the Bill have a chance.
Lord GIFFORD: For those who have been very dissatisfied about the content of a Bill one of the problems, when there have been three-Party discussions, is to decide from whom to seek to wring concessions. I will address my remarks to all three spokesmen, or spokeswomen, who have contributed to the debate. I still do not seem to have had an answer from the collective of the three Parties as to what precisely Amendment No. 59 is designed to cover.
As I understood my noble friend Lady Birk, she was of the view that it was designed to cover those people who, as she put it, are trying to "buck" the system, and according to her belief, the word "deliberately" meant with the deliberate intent to force the authority to do its duty under the Bill when it becomes an Act. If that were the case, and if a definition were drawn in such a way that only such people were to be excluded from the scope of the full duty, I should indeed be quite prepared to see how it would work. But that is not how Amendment No. 59 is worded, and that is not, as I understood her, how the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sought to explain it.
As I understand it, it is not necessary to have the intention or the motive to jump the queue. It is enough that a person deliberately does something which has the likely result that he will have to leave his accommodation, or which has the consequence that he ceases to occupy the accommodation. In other words, it is an objective, not a subjective, test. I have yet to hear from any of the three Members who have spoken, any offer to reconsider the wording of Amendment No. 59. I have no doubt at all that, as it stands—and I have taken the advice of the charities in the field—it will provide a prize loophole for local authorities to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I say this because, again and again, when reading stories of local authority refusals to observe the provisions of the circular, one sees, as for example in a report in The Times, that the homelessness was contrived; in other words, that it was a person's own fault. A wide

695
definition of intention leaves that vice in the Bill.
I do not know who is responsible for the drafting. Perhaps I must address my appeal to my noble friend Lady Birk, since the Parliamentary draftsmen are part of the Government machine. Can she, or the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, undertake, possibly with me, to have another look at this wording, and see whether it can be drawn much more clearly, to include those who have a bad motive and to exclude those who have not?
Baroness BIRK: In reply to my noble friend, I say that I stand by exactly what I said, and I do not think that it is in contradiction to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. She took the example of people deliberately building up rent arrears. I expressed the matter in slightly different language, referring to people deliberately making themselves homeless in order to jump the housing queue or, as I put it, "buck" the system. I am sure that my noble friend is correct in saying that the Parliamentary draftsmen are responsible for the drafting of this legislation. We are quite prepared for the matter to be looked at to see whether it can be tightened in any way, or whether there is any further point regarding the technical drafting, but it would be quite wrong to mislead my noble friend by saying that the intention of the clause can be withdrawn. As I explained, this is the result of an agreed compromise. My noble friend is a lawyer and perhaps he is talking about the technical side of the matter. I am sure that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would agree that we all want legislation to be as clear and precise as possible. Beyond that I do not think I can go.
Baroness YOUNG: This Amendment has been the subject of very concentrated negotiation. I think that I must be quite frank with the Committee. Neither I nor my colleagues could support an alteration of the meaning as it has been drawn up. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that this is not the first draft; there have been previous drafts. It has been the subject of a great deal of discussion. I do not wish to mislead the Committee into thinking that we on this side would support an alteration to the basic
696
concept. We do not wish to be responsible for killing this Bill. We believe that it ought to go on the Statute Book. We have come here today to support it; but we are supporting it on the basis of agreements reached. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said fairly what those agreements are. I hope that we shall stand by them. If it is a question of a purely technical matter, then I am certainly not going to quibble about that; but I do not wish to mislead the Committee. If there is to be any going back on the agreements, then I and my colleagues should have to reconsider our position on Report.
Lord GIFFORD: I listened to the noble Baroness with care. She said that she would not support any alteration to the meaning. I took her and my noble friend to mean that they would consider alterations to the wording. When one talks about no alteration to the meaning, one begs the question of what this Amendment means. It is certainly my view, and I hope that I can pursue it later in discussions, that this clause as it stands goes far wider than anything that my noble friend Lady Birk contended for. One definition of a "deliberate" act—and I want to put this on the record—is an act that is done not accidentally. If persons are to be excluded from help under this Bill because they have done some non-accidental act which has had the consequence, or has had as one of its consequences, the fact that they cease to occupy accommodation, then this Bill is worse than useless and neither I nor, I think, the organisations who are involved in the field would wish to see it on the Statute Book.
Having said that, and I say it earnestly, because the way has been opened for me to have discussions about the drafting of this Amendment with the intention that it should only cover those who set out to "buck the system" and abuse the provisions of the Bill, I am not proposing the divide the Committee at this stage. But unless some better definition of intention—if we are going to have it in—comes forward which is more accurate and more narrowly designed to cover the kind of abuses mentioned, then there will have to be further consideration on Report of whether this Bill is really worth passing. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: This is a very important point and I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to be under any misunderstanding. I think that he should accept what I thought was the wise advice from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, over this Bill; that is, that it is far better to have the Bill on the Statute Book than to take actions which may prevent that happening. What I thought was the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about another look at this Amendment, was not to re-word it but simply to look at it to see whether there was any tightening up which could be done. I do not wish him to be under any misunderstanding about our position on this side of the Committee.
Lord GIFFORD: Perhaps, by way of another example, I can discover whether there is any real issue between us. Let us suppose that a family, living under terrible strain in one room with their in-laws, eventually say: "This is too much. We cannot stand this any longer. We must leave; there is too much quarrelling and so on". They leave! Is that a deliberate act?—if not accompanied by any motive to jump the queue. That, I believe, is covered by this particular Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment NO. 11:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("intentionally") to ("and") in line 26.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move. This is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, leave out lines 21 to 26.
The noble Lord said: Having become heated, I hope with some reason, on the question of intention, I am glad to accept the other bone of contention in our Bill has been effectively eased out. I therefore will not move the Amendment.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
3.15 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("occupation") to end of line 30, and insert—
698
("(2A) If the authority think fit, they may also make inquiries as to whether the person who applied to them has a local connection with any area other than their own.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 14, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 57, 60 and 65. There were three areas of difficulty in another place. We have now dealt with two of them. One was the question of the means test; the other was a definition of "intent". A third one, with which these series of Amendments are designed to deal, was the question of the division of responsibility between local authorities. These Amendments, including the consequential and paving Amendments associated with them, follow agreements that were reached in another place. I am grateful for the help that I have received on them. The changes which these Amendments bring about ensure that the local authority, to whom an application is made, may approach another authority if it believes that the applicant has no local connection with its area but has connections elsewhere and will not face domestic violence if he returns. The authority retains responsibility for providing temporary accommodation while the question of ultimate responsibility is being sorted out. As the point of temporary and interim accommodation is important, it comes in Amendment No. 30 and it is subsection (6).
In other words, the series of Amendments are designed to ensure that no one will be left on the streets or shuttle-cocked between authorities while the whole question is being sorted out. The important principle with which I hope the Committee will agree is that we have given expression to the principle that people should not have the right to have housing on demand wherever they choose. The Amendments make clear that the authority where a local connection is established is the one to undertake responsibility. A local connection is defined in a later Amendment.
There will therefore be no question of the kind of problems that were raised in another place: for example, of seaside towns or towns with rail or air termini being inundated with requests for help for people who suddenly turn up in these particular places. This seems a fair arrangement, both to the authorities in

699
those areas and the people on the waiting lists in those areas. It makes sure that people who might consider using this legislation for their own ends play fair over the whole matter.
The series of Amendments also provides that where the question of a local connection is disputed, arrangements will be made between the local authority associations to sort out this matter or, in the last resort, the Secretary of State can intervene. After consultation, such arrangements are to be made by order and are to be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, and the new clause provisions supplementary to Clause 4—that is, on the question of responsibility as between housing authorities—is that they reallocate in more appropriate places three subsections of Clause 4 and effect some minor drafting changes consequential on other Amendments. I commend the Amendments to the Committee. I hope that they are a fair and practical way out of the difficulties which have arisen over the whole question as to which local authority will be responsible for the homeless. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: I regard these Amendments as largely of a tidying-up nature. In view of the time, I will say merely that I recommend the Committee to accept them.
Baroness VICKERS: May I say thank you to the noble Baroness for including Amendment No. 60. This is the first time that Her Majesty's Services have been mentioned in a Bill of this kind. It will be most helpful. I should like to ask one small question. If a wife is deserted by her husband and she is living in accommodation which belongs to Her Majesty's Forces, will she also be protected by this new clause?
Lord WADE: I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may be able to comment on that; but so far as I am concerned, I should like to look into this and deal with it on Report stage.
Baroness BIRK: I should like to add just a brief word to welcome these Amendments. I think that the most constructive part of them is that now there
700
is clear comfort to those homeless—such as battered wives, but not only those—who will run the risk of violence if they are sent back to the area which they have had to leave in desperation. They will now be provided with shelter by the housing authority to whom they have applied. Secondly, the arrangements to be made generally in agreement between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations or, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State, are to be determined by order subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in each House. I think that Members of the Committee will agree that these are two very important improvements on the present position. I can, with confidence, commend the acceptance of these Amendments in the name of the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("for") to ("pending") in line 35 and insert ("his occupation").
The noble Lord said: I think it is fair to say that these are drafting Amendments to simplify the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("where he may have been normally resident prior to the application") and insert ("any local connection he may have with the area of another housing authority").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duty to notify decisions and reasons]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: I beg to move that Clause 3 be left out. I have spoken to this already.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 18:
Insert the following new clause:
Application to courts for declaration of homelessness etc.
. —(1) A county court in England and Wales, and the sheriff in Scotland, shall have jurisdiction,

701
on application being made for the purpose, by a person to whom a notification has been given under section 3(4) above, not later than 14 days after the notification was given, to determine any question—

(a) as to whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or

(b) as to whether he has a priority need, or

(c) as to whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

(d) as to whether it is probable that he will be able, with advice and appropriate assistance, himself to secure that accommodation becomes or does not cease to be available for his accommodation;

or as to any matter which is or may be material for determining any such question.
(2) If an application is made under the foregoing subsection by a person occupying accommodation which a housing authority has secured for him under section 2(3) above, the authority shall secure that such accommodation continues to be made available to him pending the determination of his application.
(3) Any notification under section 3(4) above shall include information as to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section.
The noble Lord said: I will move this Amendment as briefly as I can. It is designed to confront the question: what happens under this scheme for providing for putting local authorities under a clear statutory duty if something goes wrong and a person who has a right under this Bill to be housed does not get housed? Your Lordships can, I think, be sure that things are going to go wrong. Some local authorities will put a restrictive interpretation on a number of the provisions of the Bill. Some local authorities—perhaps all local authorities sometimes—will make mistakes. They will make mistakes because of prejudice, of incompetence or purely by error or bad luck.
What worries me over this Bill is that we are imposing a duty on authorities to give specific assistance to specific classes of people, but there is no provision at all for enforcing that duty. What is one to say to a person who is wrongly refused accommodation? Should one say: "Complain to the local Ombudsman"—surely a useless remedy as far as the individual is concerned: "Make an application to the High Court for an order of mandamus?" which is equally time-consuming and useless in resolving the situation: "Make a fuss in the public Press"? That often happens already to no effect.
One of the matters in connection with this Amendment on which I should like to be advised is this. Is there any right of action, any right to go to the court, if one is wrongly refused accommodation on application under this Bill, because reasons are given which are simply not accurate or not true? In my legal experience, it would be very difficult to spell out from this Bill any right to go to a county court to get any kind of relief. Ideally, there should be some kind of housing tribunal to deal with these and other matters, and a number of charities connected with the Rent Acts have put forward the idea that there should not be the cumbersome procedures of the county court, but a housing tribunal with legal experts and lay people. We do not have that, but a county court could be almost as good.
It could have a speedy procedure for making declarations in cases like this. After all, it has adopted a speedy procedure for evicting people from places, if they are squatters. It could also adopt a speedy procedure for deciding whether they are entitled to be put back into a house. The objection has been made in another place that there is no right of appeal in connection with other duties which a local authority has. But in other housing matters, a local authority's duty is very vague; it is to consider the needs of the inhabitants of their area, and the way they carry out their duty is very much a matter of political discretion. Here we are imposing specific obligations in specific circumstances, and yet the Bill has no teeth in it. I should have thought that no Member of this House would want to see an Act which local authorities could flaunt or evade with complete impunity, if they were so minded. A similar Amendment was put forward by a Member of the Conservative Party in Standing Committee in another place. Therefore, I hope it is not being controversial to seek to put some legal teeth into this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: I would not agree that there are no teeth in this Bill. I agree that the question of bringing it into the legal system is a very big problem, but I am not at all sure that taking it to court, as suggested here, would be the right method. The setting up of a special tribunal is something which we might examine, but not during the passage of

703
this Bill. It was very fully discussed in another place, but it does not necessarily follow that we should do what the other place decides. I do not feel that I can advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
Lord GIFFORD: This is one of those cases where one puts forward an Amendment which one thinks will ultimately be necessary. Clearly, what I am proposing is a complex procedure. I believe that, in due course, it will be seen to be a valuable one. We can watch how the Act works and see whether some kind of appeal system is desirable, and how it will work. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 19 is carried. I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Clause 4 [Duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
3.29 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 41, leave out from ("intentionally") to end of line 2 on page 5.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether I may intervene for a moment, and query whether Amendment No. 21 is precluded by Amendment No. 20. I agree with the Chairman that it is certainly precluded by No. 19, but not, I think, by No. 20. We could deal with it on Report, if there was a lot of confusion.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I am taking the advice which has been given to me on this. Perhaps if there is any mistake it can be adjusted at Report stage, as the noble Lord has said.
Lord SANDFORD: In view of the fact that Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 are tidying-up Amendments, that would probably be the easiest thing to do.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("will give him a reasonable opportunity of himself securing accommodation for his occupation.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("Provided that the occupation of such accommodation shall not be terminated in the case of a family with one or more children under the age of eighteen living with them until such time as suitable alternative accommodation is offered to them.")
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It is designed to deal with the certain likely unintended consequences of the Bill as it now stands which I mentioned during the Second Reading debate. The question is: If the housing authorities decide in a certain case that they have given accommodation for so long as they consider appropriate, what action will they then take? The effect of that situation, in particular where there is a young family, may be that the case is handed back to the social service authorities to deal with who, as a consequence of this Bill, will have transferred the staff and the financial resources which they would need to carry out those responsibilities. If the result were that more children would have to be taken into care simply because their parents could not provide the necessary accommodation, that would seem to be quite contrary to the current view that children should not be separated from their families by virtue only of homelessness.
If the noble Lord, Lord Wade, tells me that this kind of handing back of responsibility to social service departments will not occur, I hope very much that he or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will explain what are the safeguards which will prevent the likelihood of this happening in many cases where the temporary accommodation provided by the housing authorities is terminated. Those are the

705
simple aims of the Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will consider it to be in line with the general object and spirit of the Bill.
Lord WADE: The noble Viscount has waited very patiently for the opportunity to move his Amendment. First, may I say that it appears to me that it is already provided in the Amendments which have been passed, that a family which is held to have become homeless should be given temporary accommodation while it is finding alternative accommodation. This is the type of case which the noble Viscount is raising. I do not believe that it is practical to insist that the temporary accommodation should continue indefinitely until the family has found alternative accommodation, since this would conflict with the decisions that we have already made. I should have thought that the likelihood of a fall back on the responsibilities of the social services—I believe this to be what the noble Viscount means—would be very remote. However, I should like to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say about it.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I do not think that I have anything to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said. Obviously the county councils and district councils will have to sort this out and co-operate at some point on what could be a very difficult area. There is no doubt that under this Bill the greatest burden of housing responsibility will rest on the district councils. We come back to the very difficult definition of what is a reasonable time. As a result of the good will of the authorities and the humanity and compassion which they exhibit, one hopes that this will work out. To some extent this matter is grouped together with Amendment No. 10. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wade, went into greater detail when we discussed that Amendment, and as I supported him in what he said then, I do not think I can help the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, any further.
Viscount AMORY: I want to be as courteous as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has given me a very courteous reply but he has not helped me in this matter, and the noble Baroness said that
706
she did not feel she could help me any further. I do not feel that I have been helped at all although two very courteous little speeches have been made. The point I was making still seems to me to stand. The general aim of this Bill is supported by the social services authorities. The transfer of their staff and resources for the purpose has been agreed because, on the whole, they think it is a good Bill; but having transferred the staff and resources they then transfer their financial means of meeting these cases. If some of these cases were to come back to them they would be met in the ordinary way, but having transferred their staff and resources I think it is rather unfair on the social service authorities.
The noble Baroness said that this sort of thing must be sorted out by agreement between the district councils and the county councils; but in this case, so far as I can see, no provision is made whereby the district councils could transfer resources to meet the additional obligations that would fall back on to the social services. I do not think that is provided for.
I do not want to divide the Committee at this stage in the afternoon, but I am very unhappy about this question. All I can do is to think about it and to consider the very little indeed which has been so courteously handed to me by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. The noble Lord said: "I am afraid I cannot do anything", and the noble Baroness said; "I do not think I can help further". I do not want to say: "Thank you for nothing", because that would seem discourteous, but I will say: "Thank you for very little indeed".
Baroness YOUNG: May I say, before the noble Viscount sits down, that in my view he has raised a very serious point. It is easy to say that there is really nothing that can be done, but this is a complicated financial matter concerning the relationships between the county councils and the district councils. At Second Reading I raised the whole question of resources. From the Financial Memorandum we know that there are no extra resources at all for this Bill. It seems to me to be a matter which must be looked at, certainly in the context of the rate support grant negotiations next year; and I should

707
have thought the Government should consider it again with the local authority associations, both the district councils and the county councils. The date of the implementation of this Act is 1st September. That leaves the local authorities with four months of this year in which the districts will have new responsibilities, the counties will have to make the arrangements with the districts, and yet may find themselves in precisely the difficulty which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has identified. I would not suggest for one moment that this Amendment should be pressed today, but I think the noble Viscount has raised a very real point which the Government should seriously consider.
Viscount AMORY: I should like to thank my noble friend for her helpful remarks. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will consult with the associations of the county councils and the district councils, to see whether some kind of agreed answer can be found to this problem, or that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will carry out various consultations in the hope that that may happen. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 24 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 12, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 21 and insert—

("(a) they are satisfied—

(i) that he is threatened with homelessness, and

(ii) that he has a priority need, but

(b) they are not satisfied that he became threatened with homelessness intentionally, their duty, subject to subsection (4B) below, is to take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.

(4A) Where—

(a) they are satisfied—

(i) that he is homeless, and

(ii) that he has a priority need, but

(b) they are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally,

their duty, subject to section [Responsibility as between housing authorities] below, is to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation.
(4B) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall
708
affect any right of a housing authority to secure vacant possession of accommodation, whether by virtue of a contract or of any enactment or rule of law.")
Lord WADE: I would recommend that this Amendment be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 28, leave out subections (6) to (11).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 25, leave out subsections (12) and (13).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Responsibility as between housing authorities
.—(1) A housing authority are not subject to a duty under section 4(4A) above—

(a) if they are of the opinion—

(i) that neither the person who applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with their area, and

(ii) that the person who so applied or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with another housing authority's area, and

(iii) that neither the person who so applied nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him will run the risk of domestic violence in that housing authority's area, and

(b) if they notify that authority—

(i) that the application has been made, and

(ii) that they are of the opinion specified in paragraph (a) above.

(2) In this Act "notifying authority" means a housing authority who give a notification under subsection (1) above and "notified authority" means a housing authority who receive such a notification.
(3) It shall be the duty of the notified authority to secure that accommodation becomes available

709
for occupation by the person to whom the notification relates if he has no local connection with the area of the notifying authority but the conditions specified in subsection (4) below are satisfied.
(4) The conditions mentioned in subsection (3) above are—

(a) that the person to whom the notification relates or some person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with the area of the notified authority, and

(b) that neither he nor any such person will run the risk of domestic violence in that area.

(5) In any other case it shall be the duty of the notifying authority to secure that accommodation becomes available for occupation by the person to whom the notification relates.
(6) It shall also be the duty of the notifying authority to secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the person to whom notification relates until it is determined whether subsection (3) or (5) above applies to him.
(7) Any question which falls to be determined under this section shall be determined by agreement between the notifying authority and the notified authority or, in default of such agreement, in accordance with the appropriate arrangements.
(8) The appropriate arrangements for the purposes of this section are any such arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order direct.
(9) An order under subsection (8) above may direct that the appropriate arrangements for the purposes of this section shall be—

(a) arrangements agreed by any relevant authorities or associations of relevant authorities, or

(b) in default of such agreement, any such arrangements appear to the Secretary of State, after appropriate consultations, to be suitable.

(10) No order under subsection (8) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(11) For the purposes of this section a person runs the risk of domestic violence—

(a) if he runs the risk of violence from any person with whom, but for the risk of violence, he might reasonably be expected to reside or from any person with whom he formerly resided, or

(b) if he runs the risk of threats of violence from any such person which are likely to be carried out.

Lord WADE: I recommend that the Amendment be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Provisions supplementary to sections 4 and [Responsibility as between housing authorities]
.—(1) A housing authority may perform
710
any duty under section 4 or [Responsibility as between housing authorities] above to secure that accommodation becomes available for the occupation of a person—

(a) by making available accommodation held by them under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 or Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 or under any other enactment, or

(b) by securing that he obtains accommodation from some other person, or

(c) by giving him such advice and assistance as will secure that he obtains accommodation from some other person.

(2) At the end of section 113(2) of the Housing Act 1957 and section 151(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 (priorities in selection of local authority tenants) there shall be added the words "and to persons towards whom they are subject to a duty under section 4 or [Responsibility as between housing authorities] of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977".
Lord WADE: I recommend that this Amendment be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of housing authorities to provide temporary protection for movable property]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 44:
Page 6, line 34, after ("authority") insert ("are subject to a duty under this Act to secure that accommodation becomes available for a person's occupation and")
leave out lines 35 to 37.
line 39, leave out ("movable") and insert ("relevant")
line 43, after ("authority") insert (",subject to subsection (3A) below,")
line 45, at end insert—
("(1A) If a housing authority—

(a) have reason to believe—

(i) that a person who has applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation is homeless or threatened with homelessness, and

(ii) that there is a danger of loss of, or damage to, any relevant property of his by reason of his inability to protect or deal with it, and

(iii) that no other suitable arrangements have been or are being made, but

(b) are not subject to any duty under this Act to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation,

they may take any steps that they consider reasonable to prevent the loss of the property or prevent or mitigate damage to it.")
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("of discharging the said duty") and insert—

("(a) of discharging the duty imposed by subsection (1) above, or

(b) of exercising the power conferred by subsection (1A) above,")

line 3, leave out ("were the last") and insert ("are the")

711
line 4, after ("question") insert ("or which were his last usual place of residence")
leave out ("movable") and insert ("relevant")
line 8; leave out ("movable") and insert ("relevant")
at end insert—
(" (3A) It shall be reasonable for a housing authority to decline to discharge the duty imposed by subsection (1) above or to exercise the power conferred by subsection (1A) above except upon appropriate conditions.
(3B) In subsection (3A) above "appropriate conditions" means such conditions as a housing authority consider appropriate in a particular case, and may include, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, conditions empowering the authority

(a) to make and recover reasonable charges for the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the power, and

(b) to dispose, in such circumstances as may be specified, of any property in respect of which they have discharged the duty or exercised the power.")

at end insert—
(" (3C) Subject to subsection (3E) below, a housing authority shall cease to be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (1) above in respect of the relevant property of any person—

(a) when in their opinion there is no longer any reason to believe that there is a danger of loss of, or damage to, that property by reason of his inability to protect or deal with it, or

(b) when they cease to be subject to any duty under this Act to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation,

whichever first occurs.
(3D) Subject to subsection (3E) below, a housing authority shall cease to have the power conferred by subsection (1A) above in respect of the relevant property of any person when in their opinion there is no longer any reason to believe that there is a danger of loss of, or damage to, that property by reason of his inability to protect or deal with it.
(3E) Property stored by virtue of subsection (3) above may be kept in store after the duty imposed by subsection (1) above has terminated in respect of it by virtue of subsection (3C) above or the power conferred by subsection (1A) above has terminated in respect of it by virtue of subsection (3D) above.
(3F) If property continues to be stored by virtue of subsection (3E) above any conditions under subsection (3A) above upon which it was taken into store shall continue to have effect in relation to it with any necessary modifications.")
at end insert—
(" ( ) In this section "relevant property" means—

(a) in England and Wales, personal property, and

(b) in Scotland, moveable property.")

The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall deal with Amendments 32 to 44 and speak also to Amendment No. 46. These Amendments clarify the duty under Clause 5 to protect the belongings of
712
homeless people so that a duty only arises in respect of those for whom there is a duty to secure that accommodation is available for a person's occupation. A power is provided in respect of other cases where the authority have reason to believe that the applicant is homeless. Authorities are given power to impose conditions in relation to charges and to the disposal of any property. The power to store property would continue after the duty or power to protect the property ceases. An undertaking was given in another place that the duty to protect the property of homeless people would be looked at again in the light of a number of points made in the debate. These Amendments are the result. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): Amendment No. 45. I must notify your Lordships that there is one change in the Amendment—that is, the word "relevant" in subsection (6) should be omitted.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 45, amended accordingly:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Duties of notification
(" .—(1) On completing their inquiries under section 2 above, a housing authority shall notify the person who applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation of their decision on the question whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
(2) If they notify him that their decision is that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall at the same time notify him of their decision on the question whether he has a priority need.
(3) If they notify him that their decision is that he has a priority need, they shall at the same time notify him—

(a) of their decision on the question whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

(b) whether they have notified or propose to notify any other housing authority that his appliction has been made.

(4) If they notify him—

(a) that they are not satisfied—

(i) that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or

(ii) that he has a priority need, or

(b) that they are satisfied that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

713

(c) that they have notified or propose to notify another housing authority that his application has been made,

they shall at the same time notify him of their reasons.
(5) When it has been determined whether subsection (3) or (4) of section [Responsibility as between housing authorities] above applies to a person to whom a notification under that section relates, it shall be the duty of the notifying authority to notify him—

(a) whether they or the notified authority are the authority whose duty it is under that section to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation, and

(b) of the reasons why the authority subject to that duty are subject to it.

(6) If a housing authority cease in respect of the property of any person to be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (1) of section 5 above or to have the power conferred by subsection (1A) of that section, it shall be their duty to notify him —

(a) that they have ceased to be subject to the duty or, as the case may be, to have the power, and

(b) of the reason why they have so ceased.

(7) Subject to subsections (9) and (10) below, any notification or reasons required to be given to a person under this section shall be treated as having been given to him if the requirement specified in subsection (8) below is satisfied.
(8) The requirement mentioned in subsection (7) above is that any such notification and reasons shall for a reasonable period be made available by the housing authority at their office for collection by or on behalf of the person to whom they are required to be given.
(9) A notification required under subsection (6) above may be given to the person to whom it is required to be given—

(a) by delivering it to him, or

(b) by leaving it at his proper address, or

(c) by sending it by post to him at that address.

(10) For the purposes of this section and section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of any person to whom such a notification is to be given shall be his last known address.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 with the Manuscript Amendment to it to leave out the word "relevant" in subsection (6).
On Question, Amendment as amended agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to charge]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Offences]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I must inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 47 is passed I cannot call Amendment No. 48.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 8, line 15, leave out from ("intentionally") to end of line 19.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("fails to give information reasonably required by the authority") and insert ("knowingly withholds information which the authority have reasonably required him to give").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Guidance to authorities by Secretary of State]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 9, line 3, after ("functions") insert ("in addition to local circumstances and the facts of individual cases").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51: and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 52. Clause 9 provides very necessary and useful powers for the Secretary of State to give guidance to local authorities about the discharge of their powers under the Bill. We have already referred to it once in connection with the intention that he should do just that in respect of gipsies. In providing for this it is important to ensure that the local authorities which are democratically controlled and especially set up in order that regard should be given to local circumstances, should be left free to take those into account. It is also important not to give the Secretary of State such extensive powers as to enable him to give specific direction to individual authorities. I do

715
not think that it was the intention of the Promoters of the Bill that this should be so. These two Amendments take care of both those points and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will be able to accept them.
Lord WADE: I am not entirely happy, but I do not wish to discuss the matter at the moment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("authorities or").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Financial and other assistance to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("on such terms") and insert ("upon such terms and subject to such conditions").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert—
(" (4A) The conditions subject to which assistance is given under subsection (1),(2) or (4) above shall in all cases include, in addition to any conditions determined or agreed under the subsection in question, conditions requiring the voluntary organisation receiving the assistance—

(a) to keep proper books of account and have them audited in such manner as may be specified, and

(b) to keep records indicating how they have used the money, furniture or other goods or premises made available to them, and

(c) to submit the books of account and records for inspection—

(i) by the Secretary of State if assistance was given to them under subsection (1) above, and

(ii) by the housing authority or the Greater London Council, as the case may be, if assistance was given to them under subsection (2) or (4) above.")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Transfers of property and staff]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, line 5, leave out ("(whether real or personal)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Orders]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("section 1(7)") and insert ("sections 1(8) and [Responsibility as between housing authorities] (9)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Meaning of "accommodation available for occupation"
(" . Any reference in this Act to accommodation available for a person's occupation is a reference to accommodation available for occupation both by him and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 59:
Insert the following new clause:
Persons intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness
.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, for the purposes of this Act a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, for the purposes of this Act a person becomes threatened with homelessness intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything the likely result of which is that he will be forced to leave accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(3) An act or omission on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above.
(4) Regard may be had, in determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above whether it would have been reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the area of the housing

717
authority to whom he applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 60A:
Insert the following new Clause:—
Meaning of local connection
(" .—(1) Any reference in this Act to a person having a local connection with an area is a reference to his having a connection with that area—

(a) because he is or in the past was normally resident in it and his residence in it is or was of his own choice; or

(b) because he is employed in it, or

(c) because of family associations, or

(d) because of any special circumstances.

(2) Residence in an area is not of a person's own choice for the purposes of subsection (1) above if he became resident in it—

(a) because he or any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him—

(i) was serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown, or

(ii) was detained under the authority of any Act of Parliament, or

(b) in such other circumstances as the Secretary of State may by order specify.

(3) A person is not employed in an area for the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) if he is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown, or

(b) in such other circumstances as the Secretary of State may by order specify.")

At end insert—
(" (4) In this section "regular armed forces of the Crown" means the Royal Navy, the regular forces as defined by section 225 of the Army Act 1955, the regular air force as defined by section 227 of the Air Force Act 1955, Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service.")
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendments Nos. 60 and No. 60A which is a Manuscript Amendment. At the end of the proposed clause—
Amendment 60—I wish to insert a further subsection. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: I accept this Amendment. On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 ([Interpretation]
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
(" "appropriate consultations" means consultations—

(a) with such associations representing relevant authorities, and

(b) with such other persons, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
(" "available", in relation to accommodation, shall be construed in accordance with section [Meaning of "accommodation available for occupation".] above").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 63:
line 16, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 64:
line 25, at end insert—
(" "intentionally", in relation to a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness, shall be construed in accordance with section [Persons intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness] above;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 65:
line 25, atend insert—
(" "local connection" shall be construed in accordance with section [Meaning of" local connection"] above;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
"notifying authority" and "notified authority" shall be construed in accordance with section [Responsibility as between housing authorities] (2) above;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD had given Notice of his intention to move the second Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
" "a person vulnerable as a result of old age" means a person who has reached retirement age or any other elderly person who has a special need."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, unlike so many of the others, has not been agreed in advance with the various Front Benches and other important people. I think that the Committee will wish to consider it carefully, unlike some of the others which are being put through so rapidly. I feel, therefore, that it would be best for me to not move it now and bring it up, it may well he, at the next stage.
[Second Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("any order for the time being in force under section 1(4) above") and insert ("section 1 above or any order for the time being in force under that section").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Repeals and consequential amendment.]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
"(5) The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall be agreed to?
3.57 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: Before we conclude the Committee stage of this Bill, I should like to raise two further points. First, I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that although a lot of Amendments have gone through very quickly this afternoon I should not like him to think, certainly so far as I and my noble friends are concerned, and I am quite certain the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we have not gone over these Amendments with considerable care over the past days. They have been the subject of detailed negotiation and consultation, and have been considered very carefully.
I should not like this Bill to go through its Committee stage without expressing once again my very real concern and that of my colleagues on the question of finance and resources. It has recurred like a theme on the various Amendments throughout the Committee stage of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Amory raised a practical point about the relationship between districts and counties. His point was that, if the districts take over responsibility, as they will, for the homeless,
720
they will have the money and resources from the county; the county may be left with residual responsibilities for one reason or another, and it will not have any further resources to meet them.
Secondly, we would be deluding ourselves by pretending that this Bill will not confer further responsibilities on local authorities. We know that by no means all district councils have accepted the responsibilities under Circular 18/74. There are, therefore, many other authorities who will be assuming new responsibilities. There are no extra resources to meet those new responsibilities. If I and my colleagues have been less than enthusiastic about increasing the responsibilities, it is because we believe it does not help Parliament, or those in public life, to believe that you can legislate without providing resources. This is an important matter that needs to be looked at. Before we finish all the proceedings on this Bill, I hope that the Government, or the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will give some indication as to how the measures are to be financed. It is a serious point, and it is of great concern to local government at the present time.
Lord WADE: I would make two points. First, we must recognise that a number of local authorities are already doing what we are asking should be done under the Bill. It is necessary for us to express our awareness of the fact that much is being done by a number of local authorities and that this may primarily affect those authorities that are not doing very much. Secondly, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that if his Amendment had by chance appeared earlier on the list we should have had a very interesting debate on it.
The Earl of LONGFORD: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was kind enough to defend the proceedings this afternoon on the grounds that there had been prolonged discussions outside of the Chamber. She will of course appreciate that it would be a bad precedent if all the business of your Lordships' House was arranged outside the Chamber and we were told there was nothing much to be done because all the people who really mattered were already in agreement; if that were to happen your Lordships' House would become a farce, which it is

721
sometimes accused of being. Probably we must accept an excuse on this occasion because of the position, but I am certainly not going to be rebuked by the noble Baroness for making the point I made because anybody reading the Official Report of today's proceedings could think that the House of Lords might as well wind itself up. I must make that point and, having made it, add that, as always, I have the highest regard for the noble Baroness.
Baroness YOUNG: I did not mean in any sense to rebuke the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I have carefully refrained from saying anything about the Committee proceedings this afternoon, or indeed about the accumulated work that has gone on this week, because I felt it would have been hardly helpful to do so. To those of us who have tried to follow this Bill, it has been an immense undertaking to understand all the points that have come up, and we have tried to do our best to meet them. I wanted to reassure the noble Earl that we were not letting everything go through "on the nod" without thought, but otherwise I entirely take his point, with which I am in complete agreement.
Lord AVEBURY: Following the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the expenditure which may be incurred under the Bill, I thought I would put on record the fact that if a certain number of people become homeless and are accommodated as a result of the provisions of the Bill, who would otherwise not have had housing made available to them and their children would have been taken into care, there will be considerable saving of public funds. That should be on the record and borne in mind when the noble Baroness or anybody else looks at the financial consequences of the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: Before I deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about resources, I must say a word to my noble friend Lord Longford. As for his Amendment, which I understand was tabled only yesterday, I would have been perfectly prepared to discuss it and it was his own choice not to move it. I assure him there was no intention on my part—I am sure this
722
applies to the whole Committee—to deal with it in a swift or derisory manner. Many of the Amendments which went through quickly today were consequential, while others were grouped together, so it probably sounded much worse than it was.
Having said that, I must comment on the question of resources because it is an extremely important matter and should be in the Official Report. A sentence in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum saying that,
"There will be no net addition to public expenditure".
has attracted much attention and was referred to on Second Reading. It means that in total the expenditure arising from the Bill will be contained withi the limits which are nationally determined for housing and related expenditure but also with due allowance made for the transfer of resources from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of the Environment.
That does not mean that individual housing authorities will not incur expenditure from the exercise of their duties under the Bill. It certainly does not mean that authorities will not have the resources allocated to them to meet their obligations. As we have said many times, the Bill is intended to give statutory force in England and Wales to Circular 18/74 which is being implemented in whole or in part at this time by over 60 per cent. of authorities. In other words, over 60 per cent. of housing authorities have already assumed the main burdens of dealing with the homeless and, curiously enough, this is particularly true of those authorities with the worst problems, and they have the worst general housing problems too. So I can give an assurance that the allocation of resources to housing authorities will have regard to their likely levels of homelessness.
The great bulk of expenditure will continue to be incurred by way of the main housing programmes: new building improvement and home loans. The programmes of new building and improvement will attract subsidies as part of the general arrangement for Exchequer assistance to a housing authority's activities. Moreover housing authorities now have greater discretion than previously to switch allocations from one housing activity to

723
another, which will give them a great deal of help and flexibility; for example, from new building to improvements. These arrangements are paving the way for the introduction of housing investment programmes, in which a maximum of flexibiliy to respond to a variety of local needs will be the keynote.
If we are going to deal satisfactorily and sensitively with all our housing problems including the homeless, we need to make the best use of our housing stock and I am delighted to say that a circular to authorities on just this subject is now with the printers. It incorporates many of the best existing practices, and recommends new initiatives. The message is very much that everything doesnot depend on the massive use of resources. Much more can be done by better management, and by taking advantage of a wide range of dwellings that may be available to housing authorities and housing associations either temporarily, or on a more permanent basis.
I would add that I think that one of the effects of the Bill, which I hope we shall shortly see on the Statute Book, will be that local authorities will be encouraged more and more to use their existing stock and not to put it out of commission before the time is due for, we hope, rehabilitation. The effect will be that it will be used for housing families, even if on a temporary basis.
The fears of some housing authorities are quite genuine, although in my view many of them are misplaced. These fears are, I think, mainly concerned with two aspects: what I might call supporting services and the operative date of the Bill. The operative date for Scotland is 1st April 1978. For England and Wales it is 1st December 1977. The difference in dates is explainable by the fact that consultations on legislation regarding England and Wales have been in progress for the last two years. The Bill was originally drafted with England and Wales in mind. Scotland was added by the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight, as the Bill's sponsor. But consultations in Scotland had only just begun.
It is, of course, argued that, even for England and Wales, the Bill should come into operation at the beginning of the next
724
financial year. I do not think that we could admit as a general implication that legislation with resource implications should take effect only from the beginning of a financial year, nor especially, as in this case, when a Bill had its Second Reading in another place last February, before the beginning of the present financial year. If this were laid down as a general rule, it would be almost impossible to bring in any legislation with financial implications other than at the beginning of the financial year. Authorities have had the opportunity to make contingency plans, and we know that many have already done so. I am sure that others will be able to take implementation of the Bill in their stride.
I turn now to the question of the cost of supporting services. I note that some housing authorities which have already assumed responsibility for the homeless have actually made economies as a result. They have been able to do this because they have been able to make more effective use of staff and accommodation. But the Association of District Councils has estimated that, on average, their members will face increased costs of some £16,000 a year. This may not seem to be an immense sum in the global sphere of expenditure, and it is a fortunate borough treasurer who can estimate with such a degree of precision.
Nevertheless, two essentially technical, but significant, points are at issue. The first point is whether all types of district council in England and Wales should have the needs elements of rate support grant paid direct to them, rather than to the county councils. My honourable friend in another place stated that the Government have already accepted in principle that it should be paid to non-metropolitan district councils (as well as to metropolitan district councils) and are considering with the local authority associations how best this could be achieved. Incidentally, no new legislation would be required to effect this.
The second point concerns the function of an authority's Housing Revenue Account, about which my honourable friend also made a Statement in another place. He made it clear that we shall be discussing the relevant issues following the publication of the housing policy Green Paper. But the issues go much

725
wider than this Bill and it would not be right to try to resolve them here and now. I am sorry to have delayed the Committee but I think that it was important in view of the points raised by the noble Baroness.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have not treated the resources implications of this Bill in a casual fashion. I do not know whether that would have cheered the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, very much. He is not here and, doubtless, he will read it. We have considered them very carefully and with due appreciation of the difficulties. Even so, we are convinced that the Bill can be implemented effectively without delay, and we are really not worried that there are not the resources available to do so.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): The very reasonable and constructive intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, prompts me to place on record from the Scottish point of view that, as the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum xtates. there will be no net addition to public expenditure or manpower resources in Scotland as a result of the Bill. The Bill will require a transfer of resources from the social work to the housing authorities. To the extent that operating the Bill results in extra expenditure for any authorities, it will have to be met by adjusting priorities. This is, no doubt, an unwelcome view, and I realise that many authorities would find difficulty in making such adjustments. The benefits in better and more efficient treatment of the homeless will ye very great and the Government believe that the savings to social work authorities will largely offset the cost to housing authorities. This point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
The mechanics of the transfer in Scotland have not yet been worked out in detail. In practice, we shall need to work out how to transfer to social work authorities the cost of providing temporary accommodation, accommodation possessed by social work authorities and used as temporary accommodation, staff who are permanently resident in such accommodation; and there may be also the meed for a further transfer of cash to reflect the reduced involvement of social work department staff and the increased involvement of housing management staff. It is
726
essential that this exercise takes place efficiently and with the full co-operation of all concerned. It cannot be done without close consultations with and between the authorities and without a great deal of detailed work in identifying the items to be transferred. I hope that the present Working Party chaired by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will be the forum within which these issues can be worked out. This task will follow logically upon the preparation of the code of practice which will set out the duties and responsibilities of the different authorities following from the Bill.
It would be premature of me to suggest how this transfer of money, staff and accommodation will be matched by a transfer in central government subsidies. In principle, there would be a reduction in rate support grant paid to social work authorities and corresponding increases in subsidies to the housing revenue account and, to a small extent, in rate support grant paid to district authorities. We shall have to look at this very carefully with the local authorities concerned.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and the Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported with Amendments.
House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.15 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Price Commission Act.