TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 15 July 1980 vol 411 cc1711-64

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17: Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("or any statutory predecessor") Page 4,line 26, leave out ("house") and insert ("dwelling-house") Page 4,line 26, leave out ("is") and insert ("was at the material time").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 en bloc. They are all purely drafting amendments to Clause 1(10), which lists the public bodies, time spent as a tenant of which by a person who has moved house and become a tenant of a public sector housing authority is to be reckonable for the purpose of the three-year qualifying period for the right to buy and for the period of up to 20 years relevant for discount purposes. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 18: Page 4, line 32, at end insert (" or as a worker in a Royal Dockyard ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. I do not know, but it may well be that the Minister will tell me that this amendment is unnecessary. It is to cover the situation of workers at Rosyth, the Royal Dockyard. There is a rather special situation here because I wish to mention the fact that I consider that the people there are being denied their rights.

We were informed that this was the Tenants' Rights Bill. We were informed still further that, apart from local authority housing, those in public sector housing were being given special consideration. We are now in a rather peculiar position as regards certain Ministry of Defence houses at Brucefield in Dunfermline. There are 372 houses in that one housing estate and, believe it or not, the people there will not be given the chance to buy their houses although in 1977 one of those tenants made inquiries and was told by the powers that be that he could have the house at a price of, I think, £2,372. However, the situation changed and for the past two weeks this whole estate has been on offer to the highest bidder at a price of around £350,000.

Many of the people there want to be covered by the Bill. They want to have the right to buy and they want to have the privileges that would come from a possible transfer from these houses to a local authority house. That is the only matter that is covered by the amendment. However, it is such an outstanding example of unfairness as between one set of tenants and another that I hope the Government will look at it. I understand that the local Member of Parliament is to raise the matter with the Minister fairly soon.

Having heard all the arguments today about how determined the Government are to give everyone the chance to become owner-occupiers, particularly those in public service houses, I think that if possible, we should look after the situation of those people who at the start of the war came up to Scotland at the re-opening of the Rosyth Dockyard and who have lived in those houses, which are owned by the Ministry of Defence and looked after by the Property Services Agency.

Those people certainly want to be assured as regards security of tenure. I do not think that there is any doubt that they have security of tenure under the Rent Acts. However, they are very troubled at the idea of this speculative bidding for the whole estate and about what will happen to them and, indeed, why they should be denied rights that are given to other people. The least that the Government can do is include them within this subsection so that their tenancies will count towards the right to buy and the right to get a discount later if they move into a local authority house.

I should like to see the local authority take over these houses—there is no reason why it should not do so. That would ensure that the Government's wish that as many people as possible should get the right to buy their own house is carried out. That is what matters most to the Government, so far as I can gather. It may well be that the residents of this area might form themselves into a housing association and receive whatever benefits will come in that respect from the Bill. However, I should like to know how the Government feel about this particular amendment as regards subsection (10) and any ideas they may have about the future of these houses, which I can assure the noble Earl really worries the tenants. I beg to move.

Viscount THURSO

I think we had it explained to us earlier in this debate that the principle is that workers in the public service living in houses provided by the public service should be allowed to acquire points towards the purchase of a local authority house. If that is so, it seems that if workers in the Royal Dockyard, who are presumably working in the public service, are living in houses provided publicly, they should be entitled to this privilege. But if this indeed applies, and if the Government say that they will consider it, this brings to my mind the case of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, where one-third of the employees in the town of Thurso work in the public service—they are public service employees—and are living in tied houses which they cannot buy. Therefore, they would surely be entitled to collect points. However, I do not see the name of the Atomic Energy Authority anywhere in the list. If this particular amendment is successful, or even if it is not, I shall certainly be examining this question more closely with a view, possibly, to introducing an amendment at the Report stage.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The general effect of this amendment would be to give one category of civilian worker, who is a tenant in accommodation provided by the Crown, the right to count the period of that tenancy for discount and for the qualifying time in respect of any house covered by the right to buy of which he may later acquire the tenancy.

In particular the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has made it plain that he is principally concerned with one particular estate of Ministry of Defence houses at Brucefield in Dunfermline. According to my information, Dunfermline District Council has refused to take the houses over, but I do not think that it would be useful, or indeed proper, for me to comment any further on that issue this evening. I say that because my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is meeting a deputation of tenants from the estate, together with the local Member of Parliament, on Friday, and he is still discussing the Government's proposals for the disposal of these houses with the Minister directly responsible for the Property Services Agency, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the end results of these various avenues of consideration are satisfactory, but I am not in any position to comment further today.

I return to the generality of the amendment. The objection is that it singles out one small group of Government employees and proposes that they should be treated differently from the many other categories of Government employees. It is not easy to get clear what is a Government employee. We have taken a very generous approach to the availability of discount, as the long list of bodies which we have already discussed, in Clause 1(10), testifies; but generally speaking we have excluded Crown employees, with two exceptions to which I shall come. This has not been altogether an easy decision, but it was one which the Opposition in the other place made it clear that they supported. In fact, in the cases of which there are exceptions—that is to say, members of the armed forces and prison officers, both of whom are often required to occupy tied houses throughout their employment—Opposition voices in the other place were raised, objecting to Crown employees benefiting from the Bill.

Therefore, it is against this background that I do not believe it would be right to single out this one type of Government employee, who is no different from many other civilian employees of the Government, for special treatment. I know that this list is bound to be arbitrary; there are people in the public service, as opposed to being in the service of the Crown as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned a few moments ago, who are not included. But quite obviously it would be impossible and make it a nonsense if everyone in the public sector were included. One has to take a number. We have taken what we consider to be a generous number, and on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

I can understand the reluctance of the Government to extend further this long list, but it is not easy to extend this list because the tenants must be in houses provided by, if it is a Government department, a Government department, or, if it is the Crown, the department of Government responsible. I do not think that there are many groups of civilian employees who have been omitted who are in that position. The whole argument of the Government is destroyed when they include the Forestry Commission. To my mind the Forestry Commission is in exactly the same position.If the noble Earl's argument stands good for Ministry of Defence workers living in Ministry of Defence houses who are there because of the Royal Dockyard and for no other reason, it is very difficult to see why we can include forestry workers who live in Forestry Commission houses, not local authority houses, who are not even Government workers.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but the Forestry Commission was included as a result of an Opposition amendment in the other place. It was the Opposition who objected to Crown employees, so if there is an absence of logic, it stems principally from the Opposition.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

I take no responsibility for what anybody else did as regards what is in the Bill. The person who must take responsibility for every word in the Bill is the noble Earl the Minister. Whatever made the Government accept the Forestry Commission, the same could allow them to accept the amendment that I have tabled. So they must not shuffle off the responsibility. I have put forward many amendments that have not been accepted; I hope that quite a number will be accepted. But the responsibility for acceptance—and he keeps on telling us this—is that of the Minister himself. So the Government must accept responsibility for the Forestry Commission being included here. Whether or not they like it, it is there, and while it is there I have a right to draw attention to it. If they can do it for the Forestry Commission, they can do it for the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, the Atomic Energy Authority. It is on all fours with that.

This, of course, is one of the complexities and difficulties which the very nature of the Bill and the proposals of the Government create. I am trying to make sense of this. If I see the Forestry Commission there, then equally something else is entitled to be there. I am not satisfied that we have had any worthwhile arguments from the noble Earl. I do not know whether or not he wants to have another try. There are thousands of people requiring to be convinced by him. He knows that if the Division bell rings, all his support will come in and beat down our amendments.

It is part of—what shall we call it?—the democratic process of the House of Lords. There is not a single Scot listening behind him. Of course, that implies full confidence in his ability. Now he has let himself down by saying, "What is in the Bill is not my responsibility, or the Government's. It was done by the Labour Members in another place". That is not good enough at this particular time.

Let him think about this again. I do not expect him to give me any decision about the Dunfermline position. But it seems rather ridiculous where the Government are pressing people to buy houses, and giving them the opportunity, that here is a Government department actually selling houses but refusing to sell them to people who have been their tenants for probably the last twenty or thirty years. It just cannot be justified in logic. But then the mistake is to apply logic to this Bill, and nothing is surer than that from what the noble Earl said about the Forestry Commission. It is something we might return to at another stage of the Bill, now that my attention has been drawn to yet another loophole and denial of right for a further group of people in Scotland. On the understanding that we are not finished with this matter, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23: Page 4, line 33, leave out ("house") and insert ("dwelling-house") Page 4, line 33, leave out ("is") and insert ("was at the material time") Page 4, line 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("was at the material time") line 40, leave out ("and") and insert ("or for the purposes of") Page 4, line 42, at beginning insert (" the Secretary of State, or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where the dwelling-house is used for the purposes of").

The noble Earl said: With leave, I shall move Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 en bloc. They are all drafting amendments to Clause 1(10). I do not think I need say any more than that.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.33 p.m.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 24: Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("facilities") to ("for") in line 10.

The noble Lord said: This is a really important amendment. Paragraph (c) of subsection (11) of this omnibus Clause 1 deals with the question of dwelling-houses which have certain facilities and are let and specially designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled persons.

There has been considerable concern about this type of house built by local authorities. There is a growing demand, and a demand which the local authorities cannot meet, for houses for elderly and disabled persons. It was subject to pressure that the Government decided to make some changes in this, but at a later stage they seemed to think they had gone too far, because I think at Report stage in another place they added the words, "and the services of a warden ". So here we are prepared to give a special concession of not applying the sale of houses in respect of dwelling-houses which are one of a group which has been provided with facilities. They have to have a call system and the service of a warden, and be specially designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled persons.

The number of people for whom the local authorities are able to make such specialised provision is very limited indeed. The Government recommended at one time that special provision should be provided in respect of 25 per 1,000. That was later raised to 50 per 1,000. Scarcely a single local authority in Scotland has been able to meet the need, or get anywhere near the original target. There are many houses which are specially let for the elderly and the disabled but they are not specially designed and built for them. They have been adapted. But when you take the limitations: facilities … specially designed or adapted and that they must have a call system and there must be a warden, I think we can say to the Government, thank you for very little. You are offering very little protection.

I had the privilege of opening a group of houses in Kilmarnock, and these are for elderly couples. They are in the grounds of Springhill House, which is a home for elderly people run by the local authority. I do not know that they are specially built, or there is anything special in the design. They are all in the one flat. They are ideal for the purpose of elderly people. They may well have a call system. You get this in sheltered housing where there is a bell at hand for the people to call for help. I suppose they could have.

However, have they got a warden? I was asking the chief executive about this a fortnight ago, and he was under the impression that they had not. I said, "Well, they are at risk now of sale, because you must have all these features and a warden as well ". These are for the elderly. They are very much in demand, and of course they are very limited. It would be a disgrace to allow somebody to purchase this type of house and then, after a few years, for it to be sold either by the people themselves moving out and moving in with relations, or by the heir to the old person.

There is nothing to prevent them. There is nothing to prevent them selling to a family. You get the whole aspect of that small area of peace and quietness completely destroyed. Surely this is not the Government's intention. They have to look way beyond the question of the call system and the services of a warden, and the special design or adaptation. It would be a far better paragraph if it read: where a dwelling-house is one of a group which has been provided with facilities for the needs of elderly or disabled persons". I think everyone can understand that. It is simple. It would certainly widen the protection given in a field where local authorities are worried because they cannot meet all the demands even under something less restrictive than paragraph (c).

If there is any one amendment that the Minister should accept of all the ones that we have dealt with, this is it. It would not undermine the principle, but it is underpinning the ability of the local authorities far better to meet the needs that are virtually becoming the demands of the elderly population. I beg to move.

8.39 p.m.

Viscount THURSO

This is an important amendment which I hope the Government will consider with sensibility and compassion. Providing for the needs of the disabled is an expensive business. It is not a cheap matter to put in all the facilities that might be required for somebody who uses a disablement vehicle and who goes in and out of the house in a wheelchair, and requires handholds, and so forth, in the bathroom and other facilities so that he or she can live a fairly normal life in spite of his or her disability.

In the past, local authorities have done their best to cope with that sort of situation. They have behaved with sensibility and compassion and have, so far as they have been able, provided facilities in a number of houses not grouped in one group with a call system and warden but dotted throughout their district, town or region. I know of many such houses in the district of Caithness and the town of Thurso, where the tenant of an ordinary three-apartment council house who has been stricken by illness and forced into a wheelchair has been provided with facilities by the council so that he or she can get in and out of the house and use the property in comfort so as to live life as near as possible to a fully able person.

It would put councils off doing that if they thought that the houses on which they had spent money doing up would be taken out of their stock. On receipt of requests to do up houses in that way at great expense, they would ask themselves: "Is it safe to spend all this money on this house? Had not this person better go into a home or wait until they can be put into a group of houses with a call system and warden? "That would cause hardship and a slowing down in coping with the needs of the disabled and would probably take out of the housing stock some houses which should be in it for the use of disabled persons. By and large, whenever houses especially adapted for the disabled come back on to the normal letting market, councils look around for people who fall into the right category and choose them as tenants for those houses.

These are therefore very specialised houses and I urge the Government seriously to consider the amendment, which would enable those houses which have already been done up to cope with the needs of the disabled to be kept in the housing stocks of local authorities. I consider this to be an extremely important point which I hope the Government will consider.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The amendment would, if accepted, drastically enlarge the scope of the exclusions from the right to buy contained in Clause 1(11)(c) so that instead, as it now is, of being limited to sheltered housing for the elderly or disabled, it would extend to all houses forming part of a group provided with facilities for the needs of elderly or disabled persons and that is a very wide definition indeed. I suggest it would be useful to take the different types of housing and consider them one by one, because that is what was done, in effect, by the Government, with the constructive help of the Opposition in another place, and they reached in the other place a conclusion which I suggest is about right.

The Bill makes careful distinctions between different types of housing for the elderly and disabled. If a house is full sheltered housing, as is assumed in subsection (11)(c), it is excluded from the right to buy because its sale could affect the viability of the sheltered housing development, by, for example, reducing the cost effectiveness of the warden service—and there are other reasons which spring to mind. Therefore, although the Government do not see why, just because somebody happens to be disabled or old, they should be thereby excluded from the rights which are being given to every other tenant who comes under the various clauses of the Bill which gives them the right to buy their houses, in this particular instance we thought it would be right to exclude this form of full sheltered housing from the right to buy.

I come to the second type of house; namely, if the house is not, as it were, fully sheltered housing but has been significantly adapted to provide special facilities for the elderly or disabled, a second type of consideration comes in. As I have said before, we see no reason why tenants in that situation, whether elderly or disabled, should be prevented from buying their homes, but we paid attention to the results which could flow if the erstwhile tenants who became owners then sold them off. In those circumstances, the local authority is permitted to impose a pre-emption condition which would have the effect of safeguarding the community's long-term interest in a stock of specially adapted housing.

There we have the first two types of housing and what is done in respect of them. We come to the third, and much the largest, group of housing. If a house is only slightly adapted—for instance, if grab rails are put in here and there—the house is not significantly different from the general run of housing and therefore it should not be subject to any special conditions. Still less should the people who are in it as tenants be deprived of the rights which other citizens are being given under the Bill. We believe this is a sensible approach which recognises the differences which exist within the broad range of houses for the elderly and disabled.

Even if I am wrong in what I have said—in the sense that the Government have not got it right—I do not think the amendment would begin to ameliorate the position, if it needed it. In fact, the amendment would confuse the structure which has been carefully evolved in another place, where the Government made a number of changes in response to views put to them in constructive fashion by the Opposition and their own supporters. It would leave the reference to grouped housing, which suggests that it is still aimed at sheltered housing, but it removes all the words included to define sheltered housing and differentiate it from lesser forms of specially adapted houses. It is a recipe therefore for confusion when authorities come to apply it, whereas one of the reasons for the amendments made in another place was a request from COSLA that the Bill should be drafted unambiguously in this respect.

However, the main reason why the amendment is unacceptable is that it seeks to exclude from the right to buy houses which do not have a warden service and do not even have specially designed or adapted features. This is a quite unwarrantable discrimination against the elderly and disabled, and it is for those reasons, not through any lack of consideration on the part of the Government, that I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

Having listened to the Minister's explanation, I would press a further point on him. He and I both come from the agricultural east coast of Scotland. In Angus, one of the great features which has made the tied house system work has been the fact that the old Angus County Council built small houses, particularly for retired farm workers, and they laid down a system of points so that they could get those houses. So there were farmworkers who were entirely happy with the tied house system, which saved them a great deal of money during their lifetime. The system also saved the country and the county council a lot of money. Farmworkers were happy because they knew that there were small houses available for retired people. This is a very important point in regard to the agricultural industry.

I notice that the Minister is not being rigid and adamant about these matters, and I now want to impress another point upon him. What are old people to do if they buy these houses? If an old couple have security of tenure, there is no point in their buying a house unless they are to pass it on to a son or daughter who perhaps might make it no longer available for old people. I do not think that the Conservative Government should have the rigid attitude to theory that the Labour Party had and say that people must have the right. This might well be a case in which the local authority could exert its discretion—which is the subject of a later amendment—with the approval of the Secretary of State. Certainly it is impossible in a Bill to cover every example of injustice or plain maladministration which may occur throughout the length and breadth of Scotland in many different circumstances. I believe that in Angus the selling of small houses for retired people might do much harm to the interests of agriculture.

Lord GALPERN

The noble Earl has this evening given us the best possible argument for these houses being excluded from the provision compelling local authorities to sell houses. He said that if we remove the words, including a call system and the services of a warden", we bring in a wide variety of houses. Yet we safeguard the position because we lay down quite clearly that it must be a house which has been provided with facilities and designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled persons". I draw attention to these various requirements. The greatest shortage experienced by handicapped and elderly people is in this particular field of housing. As the noble Lord, Mackie of Benshie, said, elderly people may buy a house and after a short occupancy, die. The house may then pass to the next of kin who are not elderly or handicapped. The next of kin move into the house, and so this type of dwelling, which is in such great demand in various parts of Scotland, is no longer available. If the next of kin occupy the house themselves, that could detract from the whole purpose, designation, and general atmosphere of the area, since young children may come to play on the little green paths and, generally speaking, may make life more difficult for the other elderly people still living in the area.

On the other hand, if the next of kin decide to sell the house to a handicapped or elderly person, then unfortunately the individual who moves in will be someone who has the necessary money, while another person, who is most deserving and has probably been longest on the local council's housing list, will be entirely excluded because he or she is unable to undertake the financial responsibility of buying. The whole principle is one which certainly calls for a complete deletion of the words, including a call system and the services of a warden".

Lord STRATHCLYDE

Perhaps in addition to the care and trouble that was taken in another place to get this matter right, the noble Earl will, before the Report stage, consider the question as put before us today by noble Lords opposite, and thereafter let us have the result of his consideration.

Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE

After hearing the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, speak, I cannot help thinking that tonight this is a re-union of Glasgow Town Council, since the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, were frequently involved in the affairs of that city. I can speak for the city, just as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, can speak for the rural areas, and it is a city in which catering for the disabled and the elderly is a real social problem. Even if the words are not as clearly defined as the noble Earl would wish, I suggest that the restrictions imposed by the clause are bound to hurt at least one or two people. The provisions are bound to restrict the availability of houses for elderly and disabled persons.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, appears to me to be a reasonable way in which to tackle this social problem. I hope there will not be a Division, but that instead the noble Earl the Minister will decide to take back this matter and have another look at it. However, if it comes to a Division, it will be a sad day if the troops who have not heard the argument in this Chamber tonight are marshalled in to support a Government proposal that in fact does the Government no credit.

Viscount THURSO

May I ask the Minister for clarification in one respect? He mentioned the right of pre-emption. Can he tell me where in the Bill lies the right of pre-emption in regard to a house specially adapted for a disabled person?

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The noble Viscount has caught me unawares. I shall look for that point while the next debate is taking place. It is just down the line, so to speak. I do not know whether this is the appropriate moment to respond to the further points in the debate. I am sorry that apparently nothing that I say is listened to, or if it is, it is not accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I have tried to say that very careful consideration was given to this matter in long debates in the other place, where, incidentally, honourable Members did not see the need to divide on precisely these questions. They were anxious, as are we, to balance the right that is being given to tenants to buy their houses with the possibly unfortunate or unjust results that could flow from that right in certain well defined and very rare circumstances. This matter of sheltered housing happens to be one of those circumstances.

I tried to explain that this form of housing as it applies to both the elderly and the disabled has in effect been placed into three categories. I shall not go over them again, but I suggest that this represents a reasonable compromise between the two perfectly laudable aims that I have suggested.

As I have said, I think that the amendment is illogical and badly drafted, and it would bring chaos where there should be order. The amendment proposes that the provision should read, provided with facilities for the needs of elderly or disabled persons". That is much too vague. No attempt is made to define a "facility" which, as I have tried to point out, could mean merely one grab rail by a lavatory. That leaves the matter much too wide. Much thought has been given to this question and there has been much constructive discussion on it, and it would be idle of me to pretend that I can go away and completely rethink it; I do not intend to do that.

I do not think I can assist the Committee any further, except to say that now that my scattered wits have been properly directed, I in turn can direct the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to Clause 4(4)—to which Amendment No. 46 relates—which gives the right of preemption.

Lord GALPERN

I have just one point. I was wondering whether the noble Earl could tell us how it comes about that local authorities do not seem to experience any difficulty in arriving at what is a house specially designed for the needs of elderly or disabled people. They do not let them out to physically fit people; they have no problem in that respect at all. Why should there be any difficulty when it comes to the Government including this particular type of house? As I have already said, the great danger lies in the fact that it passes out on sale from the use for elderly or disabled people, and physically non-handicapped people take over—the offspring and the next-of-kin of those who were the owners.

Finally, I wonder what advantage the noble Earl thinks will accrue to an elderly person who is pleasantly and adequately housed at the present time in a rented house. I should like to know what the advantage is to an elderly person, 80 or 90 years of age, who decides he is going to acquire his house privately. I should like to know what the advantage is, except probably to buy it at the discounted price and pass it on to their families.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

I am very disappointed indeed. I have always thought that this Bill was badly drafted. I have always thought it would be impossible to achieve what the Government want, because they were trying to legislate a slogan, and as soon as you tried to put any restriction upon what the Government wanted, it opened up further avenues for further restriction—all very desirable, but all very destructive of the slogan. The noble Earl comes and tells us that this would drastically increase the number of exclusions. I wonder whether he has read the clause. The clause says: … where a dwelling-house is one of a group …"— it has got to be one of a group— which has been provided with facilities …for the needs of elderly or disabled persons". Could he tell me how many such groups there are in the whole of Scotland? I am sure he cannot. I am sure his civil servants could not tell him. If they have not been asked for the information before, they should have the information. If the noble Earl is going to make statements such as "it is going drastically to reduce", he should have the facts to substantiate it.

The noble Earl talks about the agreement that was come to in another place. He must have been at a different Committee. They had 30 sittings, and they left a considerable part unconsidered. They raced over it because they had not time, during the last two days, and it was during the last two days in another place, not a month ago, that they added to the restrictions of this group. They put in a warden system. and by putting in a warden system it further restricts the number of houses that can be saved by the local authority.

Then the noble Earl says, "Ah!, but we give an option". Let us look at the option. Remember all that he said; remember all the words that are necessary —there must be a call system, there must be a warden and all the rest of it. Here is the option. The local authority will be given an option in respect of the purchase of—what? It is "a dwelling-house". It is not a group of dwelling-houses this time. It is not one of a group, but just a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly or disabled person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house. There is nothing about a call system, nothing about a warden. Perhaps I should not have mentioned this, because this will have to go in now; because the two things that he is talking about, and the one which he says protects the other, do not add up. The noble Earl talks to me about defining the facilities. There is no facility defined here. The two clauses that he referred to are two entirely different things. One is that it has to be one of a group. In the option there is no mention of a group. That is far wider than anything I have suggested.

I suggest he really ought to take this thing back and look at it. It is important from the point of view of the local authority's functions and the demands which are made on the local authority. I have in mind a group of houses in Kilmarnock, specially built, specially let to old people. I could list the names of the people who were in them at one time. They have the help of a neighbouring home and the help of nurses. I do not know whether they have a call system, but they probably have; there are very few people in these sheltered houses who have not. That is not to say that they are always provided by the Government. Round Table and Rotary have very often provided the call system. But I know that they do not have a warden system, and because of that one defect in this definition —and it is one which was put in only at Report stage in another place—these houses in Kilmarnock may well be ruled out. I hope they are not, because assuredly this Government are not greatly loved in Kilmarnock at the present time.

Kilmarnock has been meeting the social needs of old people. They have provided what used to be called Part III accommodation, which is now provided by the local authority. They get I, II and III places. They pioneered it, and they pioneered this kind of development. Now a Government come along and say, "We are doing this as a result of a slogan which was invented in England and incorporated in Scotland, and which was defeated in the election in Scotland ". I know the noble Earl does not like it, but I have told him that if he stops putting forward Scottish manifestoes I will stop rubbing home the fact that the people of Scotland rejected these manifestoes: and they have got to get this changed.

I am still hopeful that the Government will change their mind about this one; they are so completely wrong. If the noble Earl were to say, "If he withdraws it, I will promise that I will have another look at it", I will bend my own efforts and those of my noble friends massed behind me—and I am very glad to have the help of Lord Taylor and Lord Galpern; they know something about the subject—to getting an amendment to which the draftsmen will say, "Well done, thou good and faithful servants; you have saved us an lawful lot of trouble''.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord LYELL

I think the Question was put and the Contents did not reply. I am afraid that the Not-Contents have it. The Question has been put.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

Who is objecting?

Lord LYELL

I understood that there were some objections. I am sorry. We are in some confusion.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

The Government Benches are confused, and not for the first time.

Lord LYELL

I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was in some confusion and was objecting; but I am wrong. I apologise.

9.9 p.m.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney)

Amendment No. 25. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, wish to move this amendment as three separate amendments, each being one of the subsections of this amendment.

Amendment No. 25 was printed as follows: Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("; nor (d) where a dwelling-house comprises one or two apartments and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by person or persons of pensionable age; nor (e) where the housing authority is satisfied that further sales will unduly disturb the balance of housing set out in the Housing Plan submitted to the Secretary of State, and subject to the Secretary of State's considering such a submission to be reasonable; nor (f) to dwelling-houses which are situated in a housing authority where 35 per cent. or less of the housing stock is owned by that authority.")

Viscount THURSO

It is unfortunate that the three subsections of Amendment No. 25, which are linked with the same part of the Bill but not linked in sense, have been put in as one amendment. We would appreciate it if your Lordships would allow us to consider them as three separate subjects for debate.

The first, which I now move, is as follows: Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("; nor (d) where a dwelling-house comprises one or two apartments and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by person or persons of pensionable age;"). The point here may sound similar to that of the previous amendment but it is a totally different point. The point here is really the siting of houses for retired persons. I had quite a bit of experience with these problems when I was a member of Thurso town council and Caithness County Council. The difficulty in finding suitable sites on which to build accommodation for retired people is that the best place for these houses to be sited is somewhere near the centre of towns, near the shopping centres, near the post office and near the bus routes.

If these areas are not bought and held by a local authority for this kind of purpose the desirability of these sites leads to a tendency to take them out of housing and out of the reach of elderly retired persons. So the elderly retired people in one- or two-apartment houses are pushed away from the bus routes, from the shopping centres, from the post office where they collect their pensions, and away from the areas where life goes on and where they can see life without a great deal of effort and expense, where they can meet their families and friends. In my experience, it is important to acquire sites of this sort in the centre of the town and in the centre of the village and at suitable sites close to communications and so forth. I think that anything which allowed these sort of houses to drift out of local authority control would be harmful to the community as a whole, unkind to elderly people and uncaring as far as our attitude to people within the community is concerned.

I know that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will say that this is all coped with in Clause 4(4) but I have been re-reading this since it was directed to my attention, and I am not happy with the drafting of that particular clause and the various subsections which are now pre-emption clauses in the case of somebody wanting to buy a two-apartment house. If it all depends on these pre-emption clauses, perhaps we should look at them because I think the drafting is faulty. Clause 4(4) says Subject to subsection (6) below, no condition shall be imposed…except in the case of a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly or disabled person". One of the difficulties there is that this has to be substantially different from the ordinary dwelling-house. You must have grab rails. It cannot be merely a two-apartment house suitable for a pensioner. You must have something in this house which you can say is designed for an infirm person. After all, the kind of house that suits old-age pensioners is really no different from the kind of house that suits a newly married couple, because once again they are a couple at that stage. But only if they are infirm and have some disability will that house be sub-stantially different.

It seems to me extremely dangerous to rely upon this pre-emption clause, which would not save one- or two-apartment houses built in the centre of small market towns or near the post office in villages or near the bus stop in rural areas, especially for the needs of elderly people. These would not be safeguarded in any way by Clause 4(4), so that the noble Earl would have to explain to me very carefully how this was done. If one looks a little further on, one is not at all sure that a later provision does not nullify the whole thing by the way in which it is drafted. I am really not very happy about subsection (6), but what I do claim is that Clause 4(4) provides no protection for the house designed for senior citizens, designed to make life just that little bit better for the older people who are not infirm but are living a reasonably active life and want to stay in touch with the community in which they have made their home. I beg to move.

9.16 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, would always say that the Scottish Office is the last to know, and certainly in this case it was the last to know that the noble Lord was going to chop up his amendment—as if we have not got enough in this Bill to talk about—and make three debates where it would have been one before. Accordingly I must try to chop up my remarks, and that I will do. We have already had a very full debate on sheltered housing. I say one thing, and I do not say it in a contentious spirit. I am not going to be tempted to go forward now and start discussing the meaning of Clause 4 and whether it is or is not drafted felicitously, because I really think that if we conduct our debates in this way, running forward from consideration of one amendment to consideration of drafting in clauses further on, we shall never get anywhere. What I shall do is confine myself to this amendment.

Viscount THURSO

I am not talking merely about the drafting. I mentioned the drafting, but the noble Earl did tell me earlier on that this particular problem was solved by Clause 4(4). If he is going to tell me that now, I am going to tell him that Clause 4(4) does not solve it.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

We can debate that when we get to Clause 4. We really cannot go backwards and forwards in a Bill.

Viscount THURSO

The noble Earl started it.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

No, I did not, with respect. The noble Viscount asked me where in the Bill was the protection for the second class of housing, and I told him. I think that to go on now and debate it would be counter-productive and would not lend itself to logic and reason in your Lordships' Committee; and I am simply not going to do it. What I did say was that housing which is provided for the elderly—and in this part of the amendment we are talking about a person or persons of pensionable age, and not necessarily infirm people—is split up in exactly the same way as are houses for the disabled. The effect of the first part of the noble Lord's amendment would be to exclude from the right, to which I have said again and again the Government attach great importance, tenants living in houses which may well be of a type of which an authority has a shortfall. It would mean anyone, young or old, living in a small dwelling which the authority can claim ordinarily to let to the elderly. That is terribly wide and one could not possibly accept an amendment like that. It is far too imprecise in its drafting and, I suggest, in its thought.

Where there are specific problems to do with sheltered housing, I hope that I have already told your Lordships that we think we have covered them. If one has a house which is occupied by elderly people, and if the noble Lord is going to claim that it should be excluded from the provisions of the clause merely because it happens to be on a bus route and elderly people habitually inhabit it, then I must tell him that I do not think that is any reason for any Government to admit it as an amendment which ought to be accepted. I am sorry, but I do not. I do not think that I can go further than that.

I do not think that it is right and I do not think that it is fair to discriminate in this way against the elderly simply because they are elderly. Many elderly folk would be delighted to buy their home. They may have saved up money to enable them to do that, should they have the opportunity. They can buy their home and achieve something in their life which gives a lot of folk very considerable satisfaction in their declining years. They will no longer be paying out rent, but will have something which they can call their own, build up and preserve. I do not think that we should thwart the perfectly just, reasonable and lifelong ambitions of people who want to own their own houses and who would, if this amendment was agreed to, be discriminated against simply and solely because of their age.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

That is a very disappointing but, I am afraid, predictable reply that the noble Viscount has received. I do not know what more we can say to the noble Earl. Let him go and have a look at all the circulars that have been sent out by Secretaries of State to the housing departments over the past 20 years. He will see that there was a time when we realised that we were building houses, large houses, that we did not need, and we were leaving aside the needs of elderly and elderly single people.

At the behest of government the local authorities built two-apartment houses. "Two-apartment" meant a room and a kitchen in the old terminology. "Two-apartment" in modern terminology—means one bedroom, one sitting room, a bathroom and a kitchenette. That is ideal for a let to elderly people; and many apartments were built on the flat. Local authorities have in many cases been clearing out areas and grouping these houses together—but not entirely; they have been mixing them up with general needs housing as well. There is nothing indefinite about it. In practice the local authorities let them to elderly people. They would not let them to young people for the simple reason, as my noble friends Lord Galpern and Lord Taylor know, that this type of accommodation was in the old tenements, the curse of Scotland.

Through the close and up the stairs and you were faced with three houses: the one before you was a kitchen. The one on each side was a room and a kitchen. There were no inside toilets, no hot water and no bathrooms. These were the conditions that led to the overcrowding. A local authority would not be as irresponsible as evidently the Minister seems to think if he believes that these would be let to people other than the elderly and the elderly single. They were built for that purpose; in practice, the local authority used them for that purpose. If we free them from the control of the local authority, they could, on their first sale—and there is nothing to prevent it—be let to a young couple. The couple could proceed to have a family, perhaps one, two, three and four children, and would probably never get out of the accommodation. We would be recreating the conditions from which we had escaped.

That is the reasoning behind this amendment, and behind our harping on the one- and two-apartment houses. I wish the noble Earl would look beyond this slogan of his and look at the whole history and the reason for the building of houses by local authorities. I am sure that his noble friend Lord Strathclyde knows that this is true. This led to the overcrowding and the slums. Local authorities are not going to create it in their own houses that have been specially built, and it is their practice to let the houses to the elderly people. I sincerely hope that my noble friends will persist with this.

I gather that the noble Viscount has divided this amendment into three separate amendments. This one covers much of the ground that is covered by a later one of mine lower down the page, which is Amendment No. 26, which covers the one-bedroomed house: and it is the practice of the landlord to let it for the occupation of single persons, widows, widowers or elderly married couples". Because of that, I am fully in support of this particular amendment; so I hope the noble Earl will change his mind about this. The creators of chaos are the creators not just of this clause but of this whole Bill, and I do not know whether the Government appreciate it. I think they want confrontation; they want discontent among local authorities. This business of blandly turning down every amendment, where the principle is accepted but where we are trying to make the whole thing reasonable, is the most unreasonable attitude a Government could possibly take. I hope they think again.

9.36 p.m.

Viscount THURSO

My Lords, I really feel I must say that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, does not appear to have listened to what I said. He is, of course, a little further away from being an old age pensioner than I am, but surely a person who moves into the kind of housing which I have described has already spent a good few years living, probably as a council tenant, within the community in which he is going to move into this one- or two-apartment house, and if he was longing to buy a house surely he would be longing to buy a house in the community in which he has spent the greater part of his life—and that is not the two-apartment house, into which he is not going to be moved until he has satisfied the requirements of the local authority which are that he be a senior citizen. These houses are, as I well know, deliberately designed for the senior citizen, deliberately located to be in places suitable for the senior citizen. I know what difficulties councils have had in finding areas upon which to build this sort of house; and this sort of house is not covered in the Bill, it is not protected by Clause 4(4). The noble Lord was the person who told us about the protection which Clause 4(4) was supposed to provide for houses for the elderly. That is why I mentioned it. It was because he told me that there was this pre-emption protection.

I now see that there is not to be a pre-emption protection for this particular class of house, for the two-apartment house designed for the elderly, and I feel I should press this amendment upon the House and not withdraw at this stage. However, I would give the noble Earl one chance to say that he will reconsider before we actually press this amendment to the vote.

9.28 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

It is so tempting to say that I will reconsider, and go away and either do it or go through the motions—I have sat on that side of the House, and it has happened again and

again—but it would be totally dishonest of me. So much thought has been given to this whole subject of sheltered housing. I tried to explain to the noble Viscount the objections to his amendment. I know that he cannot concede in thought that if you have an ordinary house, which is what he is really talking about, which happens to be rather small and which happens in the past to have been let to elderly people, in the future tenants would not be allowed to buy it. That is really what is between us. I am telling him that the Government say there is an overriding consideration of the right which tenants are to be given to buy their properties except in certain very well-defined circumstances, which we have been debating. I am sorry, but I do not think that this type of housing comes into one of those exceptions. I think it would be less than honest of me if I said that I would take this away and look at it again.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

The Question is that Amendment No. 25 be agreed to? As several of your Lordships may not have been in the Committee when I first read it, the amendment is: Page 5, line 10, at end insert (';nor (d) where a dwelling-house comprises one or two apartments and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by person or persons of pensionable age'.". The other parts of Amendment No. 25 will be the subject of further amendments.

9.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 70.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

I will tell the noble Earl. It was he who told me the difference. He said, with regard to Amendment No. 4, that the Secretary of State had no statutory authority and, therefore, it lay entirely in the hands of local authorities.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

So, I fancy, it will with this amendment. What I suppose could happen is that a housing authority could produce its plan, record therein that it considers that the balance of housing will be disturbed by "further sales"—whatever that means—seek approval and it would be up to the Secretary of State to give it or not. I have not addressed my mind as to whether, in those circumstances, the Secretary of State would be acting ultra vires if he did. I am not sure about that. But it is one more way of saying, in a rather more attractive form than the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the statutory right to be conferred on the tenant is to be whittled away and instead is to be left to the discretion of the local authority.

But, says the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, there is the further proviso that the local authority cannot be totally unreasonable; otherwise, it will not obtain the seal of approval from the Secretary of State of the day. That, no doubt, is the way he puts it. He has not said what he means by "the balance of housing", in what circumstances the balance could be upset, what balance is desirable or anything like that. I had thought in my naive way that he would address himself to rural housing, but he has not done so and I shall therefore not be tempted along that path. All I can say is that I am afraid I am not at all persuaded that this amendment would improve the position as it exists in the Bill, and I could not possibly recommend it to the Committee.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

I am very disappointed indeed but, like the Minister, I was slightly disturbed that the Liberal Party refused to support me on what I thought was much the same kind of amendment. I should like to take up the Minister on the housing plan. He knows that housing plans have been in operation since the Green Paper of 1977. It may surprise him to know that, statutorily or non-statutorily, local authorities have put forward suggestions about the sale of so many council houses. The Clyde area was one. The Secretary of State disagreed with them and suggested another figure for the sale of council houses. They accepted it and went ahead with it. Then Kyle and Carrick suggested the sale of 100 or 200 council houses. The Secretary of State agreed and they went ahead with it.

Many of the powers exercised by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office arc not entirely under statute. Probably this is just as well in many cases. If the Minister is worried about that, the Bill has a long way to go; we can easily make it a statutory housing plan. The local authorities agreed that it was sensible for the Government to do this. The noble Earl asked my noble friend Lord Mackie "What is 'a balance of housing?' It is a very big phrase". If he asks the Institute of Housing they will tell him; if he asks the housing managers of all the local authorities they will tell him; and if he asks his own officials they will tell him. The local authority has to provide for the statutory needs of the people—that is, for general needs, for slum clearance, for overcrowding, for single people, for elderly people, for the disabled. The responsibility is theirs. The point is that their authority is being usurped by central Government, who will make it impossible for local authorities to carry out their duties. The Scotsman put it very well: The authorities know best the conditions in their area: what houses could be sold, and where, and whether the right to repurchase should or should not he exercised. But they have been stripped of any discretion and made to act as the Government's selling agent". The Government are determined to hold on to the position that they know best. Well, they do not. I am sorry about this reply. I think it was based upon a lack of understanding of the housing problems and the housing needs of Scotland. It is making a mockery of democracy, if we can mention that word in this House.

Several noble Lords: Of course we can.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

Well, it is not a very democratic place, is it? In a minute I shall be asking the noble Earl on the opposite Front Bench what his majority is. The people of Scotland, both nationally and locally, turned this down, lock, stock and barrel. They

CONTENTS
Balogh, L.	Janner, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Kaldor, L.	Stone, L.
Birk, B.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Blease, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Thurso, V. [Teller.]
Brockway, L.	Peart, L.	Underhill, L.
David, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Walston, L.
Galpern, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Hampton, L. [Teller.]	Ross of Marnock, L.	White, B.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Simon, V.	Winstanley, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abercorn, D.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Balerno, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Avon, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.
Bellwin, L.	Fortescue, E.	Mottistone, L.
Belstead, L.	Gibson-Watt, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Bessborough, E.	Gisborough, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Boyd of Merton, V.	Gowrie, E.	Orkney, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Gray, L.	Pender, L.
Bradford, E.	Gridley, L.	Reigate, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,L. (L. Chancellor.)	Rochdale, V.
Cockfield, L.		St. Aldwyn, E.
Colwyn, L.	Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Saltoun, Ly.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Harvington, L.	Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Craigavon, V.	Holderness, L.	Selsdon, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Craigton, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Sharples, B.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Inglewood, L.	Strathclyde, L.
De La Warr, E.	Kemsley, V.	Sudeley, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Killearn, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Trenchard,V.
Dundee, E.	Long, V.	Vaizey, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Lyell, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Ely, M.	Macleod of Borve, B.	Vivian, L.
Ferrers, E.	Mansfield, E.	Westbury, L.
Ferrier, L.	Marley, L.

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

9.38 p.m.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Amendment No. 25A is the second paragraph of Amendment 25 as printed.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE moved Amendment No. 25A: Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("; nor (e) where the housing authority is satisfied that further sales will unduly disturb the balance of housing set out in the Housing Plan submitted to the Secretary of State, and subject to the Secretary of State's considering such a submission to be reasonable;

The noble Lord said: I will not take long on this amendment because we have covered a great deal of the ground already. I think this amendment is extremely necessary, as this debate has shown. From all sides of the Committee noble Lords have spoken of particular areas in their own communities where the local authority and, indeed, the pensioners or some other special group would be very embarrassed if a considerable proportion of these houses were sold without the local authority being able to do anything about it.

Lord Ross of Marnock had an example, Lord Galpern had another, Viscount Thurso had one and I had one myself. I think it is precisely because of this that the Government should introduce some form of appeal for a local authority as well as giving every citizen who can have it the right to buy his house. It is only reasonable that that should be so, and it would save a tremendous amount of unhappiness and misuse of resources which were built for a special purpose and which could easily be abused. The wording of the amendment is such that it is really an appeal to the Secretary of State, who has the final word. It is quite different from the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, which gave the whole say to the local authority.

Since it is the fashion in this Committee to lecture people, I should like to lecture the Minister particularly on his attitude to the fact that all wisdom resides in the other place, where he told us the Bill has been extremely carefully considered. Let me tell him, as he knows himself, that in the other place little wisdom resides. Passion, yes, theology, theocracy—everything except wisdom. If there is any justification for this House, it is that it considers carefully what the other place has done and suggests from a great deal of accumulated wisdom—which I do not claim for myself, but which I see all around me—amendments which make the law infinitely better for the ordinary citizen. That, I suggest, is what this amendment is about. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I was going to ask the noble Lord, before he sat down, where his amendment differed from the first part of Amendment No. 4. But he assures me that there is a difference, and I suppose we shall have to be content with that— could not get more than 707 votes in the centre of Glasgow. We are back to facts. What happened in the local authority area that the noble Earl lives in? I can tell him what happened in local elections all over the place. The people rejected it. They fought the elections on the ground that the Government knew best and that they were going to give people a new right in respect of buying council houses. The people said, "Thank you very much, but we don't want it", but the Government said, "Whether you like it or not, you are going to get it". They are destroying any pretension of being concerned about the freedom and discretion of local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has said, once again they are showing no understanding of the whole aspect of policy in respect of housing planning and meeting the needs of the various categories. They are just determined to carry out a slogan and to make a nonsense of everything.

Viscount THURSO

I think I owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, to explain the difference in our attitude between this amendment and Amendment No. 4. With regard to Amendment No. 4, we felt that local authorities were being invited to become judges in their own cause. In this amendment we are saying that there may well be a case which the local council may see but the judge should be the Secretary of State and that is the slight measure of difference between us on this point. Nevertheless, whether we may disagree or agree on the emphasis, the purpose of both our amendments is the same and that is to safeguard particularly the smaller rural authorities where a housing plan could go very much out of balance with too many sales. In fact at the last general election the Tory party manifesto specifically suggested safeguards against too many sales in rural areas, and I am surprised that they do not now see these suggestions with some pleasure in that we are helping them to honour their manifesto in this respect.

In the borders, the Highlands and the North East there are many parts of rural areas where there are only two or three council houses in a group and to sell off even one of those could very well upset the housing balance in that area quite drastically, and I feel it is only right that there should be some protection against the complete unbalancing of housing plans and that the Secretary of State is the correct arbiter to whom appeals should be made.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

I, too, am very disappointed. I shall not return to the centre of Glasgow but I will return to this point: of course I could have adduced arguments about rural Scotland and indeed my noble friend Lord Thurso has just done so, but the point that I was trying to make is that all over Scotland, rural and urban, there are different sets of circumstances which cannot be covered by a blanket resolution, which in fact is what the Government are putting forward. Hundreds of Bills which have become law in this country contain a clause which says that, in case anything else goes wrong at all, the Secretary of State has power to put it right. That is a well-known device and I think in this case it is such a complicated measure with so many different combinations of circumstances in rural and urban areas that we were merely asking the Government—not to accept our particular amendment, which I am sure is appallingly drafted and is quite dreadful, but at least to give us an assurance that they would look at it. They are not going to do that apparently; they are going to retain this curious socialist attitude that they must stick to the theory. We shall not press the amendment but we reserve the right to bring up this matter at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 25B not moved.]

9.52 p.m.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 26: Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("; nor (d) where a dwelling house has only one bedroom and it is the practice of the landlord to let it for the occupation of single persons, widows, widowers or elderly married couples.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is more or less included in the debate which we had on Amendment No. 25 and I do not propose to move it now, but I reserve the right to put it down again for consideration at Report stage.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 27: Page 5, line 10, at end insert— ("; nor (d) where a dwelling-house is part of a multi-storey block").

The noble Lord said: I want to move this amendment very quickly. I cannot for a minute understand why the Government do not get up and even frustrate me in the brilliant speech I am about to deliver—which, of course, I have carefully prepared. Can your Lordships imagine anyone in a multi-storey block of flats buying a flat there and the appalling consequences there would be if nine-tenths of the block was owned by the local authority with only isolated little pockets of owner occupation? The idea is nonsense. There is the whole question of servicing, the whole question of repairing, the whole question of management. If there is one thing we should have learned in Scotland it is that we do not want multi-ownership in tenements or multi-storey flats.

Noble Lords from Scotland will remember 1968, when there was a storm which swept over Scotland and removed the roofs of tenement houses, destroying them; chimney pots came down. Who was left to pick up the pieces and try and get on with things, trying to forget about statutes and forget the limitation on the powers of local authorities or the Secretary of State to act, because everyone said we should? What was the thing that kept us back except the multi-ownership? I gave the order that we should go ahead and put the roofs back on, get people back in their houses. By the way, for those who are in love with the private ownership of tenement flats and the rest of it, I can assure you that there were plenty of them empty but the people who were made homeless did not move into them; it was left to the local authority to provide for them. But there was a bill to pick up at the end.

One of the things we discovered with owner-occupiers, especially people who bought houses that their parents had been glad to get out of, tenement flats, was that they were under-insured; some of them had no insurance. This is something I hope we shall have time to discuss at some time or other when it comes to the provision for people buying these flats. They must know what they are letting themselves in for, and that the cost is not just the cost of the mortgage, so that they will go into owner-occupation with their eyes open.

I would like the Minister to go back to the Scottish Office and ask how much of that money that was spent by the Scottish Department at that time on behalf of Glasgow, Stirling and other places, has not been repaid by some of the owner-occupiers of these flats or some of the private tenement owners. We are inviting trouble for ourselves in respect of the management of multi-storey flats if we allow them to be multi-owned. Common sense alone says that we should draw the line at this; there must be a restriction. I shall cut my speech short because the hour is late for this House; it would be early elsewhere, but I have not got rid of all my bad habits yet. I suggest the Government should cut the debate very short by saying, "Yes, we accept this amendment. Thanks for moving it." I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The trouble is that "No" is a shorter word than "Yes", and I have to use it. There is nothing inherent in the nature of multi-storey blocks which is incompatible with ownership. Therefore, in principle, we see no reason to exclude some 14 per cent. of public sector tenants from the right to buy. I do not conceal from the Committee for a moment that selling multi-storey flats has conveyancing problems, but we do not accept that they are insuperable. Several local authorities in England have experience of selling multi-storey flats. In any event it is no part of the policy embodies in this Bill to allow the administrative convenience of local authorities to prevail over the interests of tenants. Our approach from the tenants' point of view is that council tenants are responsible adults capable of making up their own minds. If there are snags which are inherent in the buying of multi-storey flats they should, of course, be explained to the tenants.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

No one is suggesting—

Several noble Lords: Order!

The Earl of MANSFIELD

If I may finish my sentence the noble Lord can have another go. If there are snags of this nature they will be, or they should be, explained to the tenants. After that, they are responsible adults and we believe they can make up their own minds as to whether in the particular circumstances they want to buy.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

No one is suggesting that we should sell multi-storey blocks. I know of cases where blocks in toto have been sold and there is sense in that. However, we are talking about a dwelling-house which is part of a multi-storey block—simply that—and that is where the difficulties arise.

On Question, amendment negatived.

10 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 28: Page 5, line 26, after ("may") insert (",at the discretion of the landlord").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 28. This is a purely drafting amendment which is consequential on the fulfilment of an undertaking given to the Opposition in another place in effect to make an amendment to the definition of "occupation" in Clause 1(12). I beg to move.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Procedure]:

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

10 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 36 en bloc: Page 6, line 15, leave out from ("months") to ("after") in line 17 and insert— (",where the application is made during the first year after the commencement of this section, or, in any other case, within 2 months") Page 7, line 4, leave out ("any") and insert ("the") Page 7, line 9, at end insert ("setting out the request") Page 7, line 10, leave out ("or failure") Page 7, line 14, after ("above") insert ("or by his failure timeously to serve an amended offer to sell under the said subsection") Page 7, line 30, after ("sell") insert ("by timeously serving a notice setting out a request under subsection (3) above;") Page 7, line 33, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 30 to 36 en bloc. All of these amendments are drafting amendments concerning various stages in the process dealt with in Clause 2 whereby a landlord serves an offer to sell on a tenant who has applied to exercise his right to purchase and, after negotiation where appropriate, the tenant has the opportunity to serve a notice of acceptance.

It is helpful, I think, to take these amendments as a whole. Amendment No. 30 corrects the drafting of an amendment made by the Government in another place in response to representations from housing authorities. Amendment No. 31 makes a very minor drafting change in relation to the tenant's right, after an offer to sell has been served, to request the inclusion or exclusion of a joint purchaser. Amendment No. 32 concerns the stage of the procedure where the tenant has requested alterations in an offer to sell as regards conditions of sale or joint purchasers. Amendments No. 33 and 34 are both related to the tenant's right under Clause 2(4) to seek the judgment of the Lands Tribunal on any request for a change in the offer to sell to which the landlord does not accede. Amendment No. 35 makes a similar change to subsection (6), which deals with the time limits on a tenant's right to serve a notice of acceptance. I have put the matter in short and rather muddled compass. I beg to move.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 37: Page 8, line 12, leave out subsection (8).

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37. This is a fairly important amendment. It deals with a matter of considerable principle. Not only is the right given to purchase, and purchase at very considerable beneficial discount, but a further privilege is given to a tenant who wishes to purchase; namely, he can say, "Yes, I wish to purchase, but not just now". He pays £100, and for up to two years after that he can purchase the house at that fixed price. Therefore, a fixed price option is given. I am sure that there are many people indeed who would love to meet someone as generous as that, who will sell them something that perhaps costs £6,000, and if they wait two years before they buy it they will get an even better bargain because the value of the house will have increased. Anyone who had taken advantage of this offer in the last two years in respect of house prices in Scotland would have benefited very considerably. There is no indication that, in respect of the houses that will be desirable enough for the tenants to buy, that will not happen here.

I think that the Government are going overboard in their efforts, to use the phrase of the Member for Aberdeen South, to "get rid of council houses". They are forgetting an element of a sense of fairness between the tenant in this particular case and the rest of the ratepayers and, indeed, those other people who seek to buy in the open market. Can you imagine anyone else saying, "It is all right, give me £100; I can wait for two years and you can get the property at the price that we are now fixing". It is so unfair. It only has to be stated to be appreciated to be unfair. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The noble Lord is perfectly right when he says that this amendment in fact highlights a fundamental difference of view between the Government and the Opposition so far as people who wish to buy their council homes are concerned. In a nutshell, the Government wish to help them and the Opposition wish to hinder them, if at all possible.

The purpose of Clause 2(8) is an attempt to help those who, although they wish to buy their home, are not in a financial position to do so right away. It is available only to those who are offered a loan by a housing authority which is not as large as the amount which they indicated that they needed in order to buy the house. If they are prepared to put down £100 deposit, it gives them the right to buy at the price which they have been offered at any time up until two years after the date of their application. The purpose of this is to allow them time to save more money so that they do not need a loan for as large a percentage of the price or for improvements in their financial position to take place, perhaps through obtaining a better paid job. In other words, we are saying to people that if they are prepared to make an effort to help themselves, we are prepared to meet them half way.

This may be the only chance of home ownership that people on relatively low incomes ever have and we believe that it is a chance which they should be given. As the Opposition do not want to give anyone that chance, it is hardly surprising, I suppose, that they do not approve of this provision. Of course, this amendment would go some way—in fact, it would go a great deal of the way—to detract from the right which we give them. It is obvious from what I have said that I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]

10.10 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41: Page 8, line 37, at end insert ("12 months after") Page 8, line 39, leave out from ("acceptance") to end of line 40 and insert ("under subsection (6) or (8) above").

The noble Earl said: These are in effect drafting amendments, so perhaps I could move Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together. I beg to move.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

I would not myself call the last amendment a drafting amendment, but at this time of night I am not going to quibble about it.

10.10 p.m.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 42: Page 8, line 44, at end insert— ("(12) Subsection (8) of this section shall not apply where the dwelling-house is one of a group on which the landlord has proposals for, or the houses are in the process of, improvements, alterations or major structural repair; or where the dwelling-house has had such work done on it since 15th May 1975.").

The noble Lord said: This is another simple amendment. We have granted this fixed option where people can wait for two years. It sounded plausible for the Minister to suggest that the only reason why a person delays this option could be because he is unable, by reason of the application, to get a loan of the amount that he wants. It can be arranged in many ways as to whether or not he gets the size of loan he wants. It can be for very different reasons from those that the innocent Minister of State suggested. But now we come to the question of the particular house.

Remember that the price has been fixed. There can be no departure from that price. Suppose it is a dwelling-house which is one of a group for which the landlord has proposals for improvement, major repair, and goes ahead with this major repair, probably costing thousands of pounds, but the price is fixed. Surely it is sensible to take that position into account. It may be that if the price has been fixed, the local authority will say, "We are not going ahead with this". The local authority may well have a contract out with a local contractor covering this and other houses. It is fair in this instance to say that where these houses are due to be repaired, or are in the process of being repaired, this fixed option, "Wait for two years and pay only the price we first of all fixed", is quite wrong. That is why we put forward this amendment, and indeed the suggestion where the work has been done on it since May 1975. It certainly is an extension to it, and I daresay that the Government will object to that extension. But certainly to the first part of it, where the houses are in the process of improvement, alterations, or are about to be, where the price is already fixed it would be quite wrong to allow the house to be sold at that price.

It is not a question of helping and hindering; it is a question of fairness and unfairness. There are more people to be considered in this respect than a would-be tenant purchaser. There is the whole of the rest of the ratepayers and all those who live in local authority houses. If the noble Earl thinks that the rest of the people in local authority areas seeing this kind of thing going on are not going to be disaffected towards the local authority when things are being given away in this way, then he does not know very much about the reactions of Scottish people, and people in respect of Scottish local authority housing in particular. I beg to move.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

I should merely like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, appears to have a point in the first part of the amendment. I trust that the Minister will be able to explain.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in that there are two proposals contained in the amendment one of which certainly deserves more consideration than the other. Dealing with the less meritorious one first—that is, the proposal that because a house has had works carried out to it since local government reorganisation, a tenant should not be entitled to an option to buy it at a certain price even though he could have bought it at that price if he had the money—Clause 2(8) is concerned with helping people who fall just below the level of being able to afford home ownership. If one accepts that principle, there is no case for discriminating between that sort of tenant in one house and a tenant in a similar position in another.

The point of substance concerns works which were not carried out in time to be reflected in the house valuation. Clearly there is a danger that authorities might be discouraged from carrying out works on houses subject to a fixed price option. The amendment would not be a satisfactory way of dealing with that point of concern because it negates the right to an option and because it would operate on the basis of a landlord's proposal which, in the hands of an unscrupulous authority, might be a wholly fictitious device to deprive tenants of the benefits which Parliament has decided that they should be entitled to. The defects of the amendment do not, of course, dispose of the problem and we have given the matter careful consideration. Having done so, we are satisfied that the Bill provides adequate scope for authorities to safeguard themselves in relation to houses for which they have genuine plans for major works by seeking to impose appropriate conditions of sale in the offer to sell, which forms the basis of the option.

I can illustrate that in this way: "appropriate conditions" could relate to repayment of any work done in the two-year period. If a tenant disputes those conditions, it would be a matter for the Lands Tribunal to resolve and, in the light of any such decision by the Lands Tribunal, it would be for the tenant to consider his position. I hope that with this explanaton I can convince the noble Lord that his point which has substance is already catered for in the subsection and he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

I dare say that in the end I shall withdraw the amendment, because of the weakness of the second part of it, but let us look at the solution. "Appropriate conditions", yes, but put in by whom? By the local authority. The Minister will appreciate—and we have not yet come to the clause—that those conditions are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. He is the great ruler of all things in this matter, not the local authority. Thus, we have the Secretary of State hurdle to go over and then we have the Lands Tribunal. I believe it would have been far simpler to have ruled out the possibility of this kind of thing happening and not leave it to the matter of conditions. Unconvinced though I am by the noble Earl's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Conditions of sale]:

10.18 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44: Page 9, line 32, after ("generality,") insert ("common") line 32, leave out ("of ownership").

The noble Earl said: These are technical drafting amendments. They have the effect of providing that the conditions of sale contained in an offer to sell under the right to buy must confer on the tenant such "common rights", rather than "rights of ownership" as the Bill expresses it at present, as are necessary for his reasonable enjoyment of other parts of the building of which his house forms part. Rights to use of a common drying green attached to a block of flats, for example, may be more appropriately described as "common rights" than "rights of ownership".

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 45: Page 9, line 42, at end insert ("and maintaining").

The noble Lord said: Now, are we in sight of victory? This is the real test. If this amendment is refused, I am not going to move another single amendment on this Bill. Clause 4(2) states: A condition which imposes a new charge or an increase of an existing charge for the provision of a service in relation to the dwelling-house shall provide for the charge to be in reasonable proportion to the cost to the landlord of providing the service". My amendment seeks to add the words "and maintaining" at the end of that subsection. I am waiting to hear the Minister find fault with this amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I am afraid that the time that the noble Lord mentions is not yet. There is to be such an occasion, but I am not going to tell him when it is to be, so as to prolong the excitement. This amendment is unnecessary. The word "providing" which currently appears in Clause 4(2) embraces both the initial provision and the continuing provision of a service. I am informed that there arc numerous statutory precedents for its use in this dual sense. So I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

That is not a very convincing reply. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 48: Page 10, line 40, leave out ("accordance with the provisions of") and insert ("pursuance of his right to purchase under").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical drafting amendment. I beg to move.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Clause 5 [Loans]:

10.23 p.m.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 50: ("(v) such other information as the Secretary of State considers necessary to allow the landlord or other body to consider whether the applicant is a suitable person to receive a loan under this section; and").

The noble Lord said: Clause 5 deals with loans to a tenant who exercises his right to purchase. He applies to the local authority, and says, "I am sorry, but I have applied to the building societies and they have turned me down." The tenant applies to the home loans department of the local authority, and the local authority, whether or not it likes it, must provide a loan of some kind, even if it is only 10 pence. That is the effect of the clause as drafted.

My amendment deals with the question of the provision of the loan and whether or not the application can be turned down. The whole thing is tied up with the Secretary of State. First, an application for a loan must be in such form as is laid down by the Secretary of State by means a statutory instrument. The form shall contain the amount of the loan which the applicant seeks… the applicant's annual gross income and his net income… any liabilities in respect of credit sales… a statement that the applicant has applied for and been unable to obtain a sufficient building society loan".

I suggest that we add: such other information as the Secretary of State considers necessary to allow the landlord or other body to consider whether the applicant is a suitable person to receive a loan under this section…".

Surely that is reasonable. The local authority is to lend the money—possibly several thousand pounds—to the tenant who wants to purchase his house. Surely the question of whether to give a loan to a particular tenant is not purely a matter of mathematics. Surely there are other aspects which come into it. The question arises as to the record of this person as a tenant, even in the three years. It may well be more than three years. It may well be that he has been in the toils so far as debt is concerned, that he has not been paying his rent.

That, surely—and there are other aspects of information which I am perfectly sure noble Lords will provide themselves—is something about which a local authority has a right to know. But it can know about it only if the Secretary of State puts it into the form. It is not really the Secretary of State who is lending the money; it is the local authority. But the person who is laying down all the questions is the Secretary of State. Really, the persons who should be satisfied are the local authority, because, after all, they are responsible to the ratepayers—and, indeed, in the end, probably, to the Treasury as well, in respect of this kind of finance—in relation to those to whom they lend money.

I think it is a fact that, out of those who receive home loans under the home loan schemes of local authorities, one in five—it is a very high proportion, one in five—default on their loans; so a certain measure of care has to be introduced into this. It is not always the person who struggles to pay who is the defector, or the person who has not got the requisite minimum income: it is somebody who is an awful lot better off who is the kind of person to whom you would not lend money. I think we are entitled to have this considered by the Secretary of State, that he should get the person to supply further information in respect of his worthiness to receive a loan from the local authority to purchase that local authority's house. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I am bound to say that I regard this amendment as being purely cosmetic. It is difficult to see what information the would-be borrower could provide, on the form which the Secretary of State is going to prescribe by statutory instrument, which would enable the local authority to (as it were) test his character when it is he who is going to supply the information which cannot readily he gained in other ways. The form is going to prescribe the applicant's own personal financial position, other liabilities which he has attracted and a statutory statement that he has in fact been unable to obtain a sufficient building society loan. I cannot see what else he could be expected to put, by way of answering questions or relating information, which could possibly help the local authority to carry out its statutory function—unless, of course, this is in fact a concealed paving amendment for another amendment which the noble Lord is going to move in the not too distant future, which would give the local authority the right to refuse such an application of its own discretion. Then, of course, this amendment might have some point, but as the Bill stands, no.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

That is very disappointing indeed, but it is consistent with the experience we have had all evening. Of course, we know that they have been turned down by a building society. In fact, they cannot get a loan unless they have already been turned down. The situation is that the high-risk people are the people to whom the local authority must give a loan, whether or not they like it. The Secretary of State is determined to ensure that they will give them a loan. When I think of the grounds on which a court may order recovery of possession of a house, the behaviour of a tenant, it may be that the person may be the wrong person to whom to grant a loan. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament, as quite a number of noble Lords in this House have been, will know that one of the greatest problems that we have in local authority housing is the unsocial tenants who make life absolute hell for the people next door to them and the people upstairs. And there is little you can do about it. You need not bother to go back to your Member of Parliament to see if anything can be done about this—you had better go to the police; because, after this, if this kind of person applies for a house and has the wherewithal to meet the needs of a building society or of the Secretary of State, he will get his loan and his house and then you will not be able to do anything about it. The people will suffer and suffer and the proud owner-occupier with a new gleam of independence in his eyes will go on without let, knowing that so long as he does not do anything which is criminal you cannot get him out.

I can think of a lot of justification for seeking further information in respect of an individual who applies for a loan of £6,000—not just the mathematical calculations in relation to his income; calculations which, by the way, will be laid down by the Secretary of State and not by the local authority. The local authority are just agents; they are the message boys. We have asked to see what these conditions are. The Secretary of State comes into this clause about four times with different kinds of orders and we have not yet been given a clue as to what the orders are or what the questions entirely are going to be and what are the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State and how the calculations are to be made. In the other place, they asked for this and the Government stupidly produced a paper—I say "stupidly" because they had to tear it up; it was so inaccurate.

With the rigid good sense of this noble House they have not produced anything at all; but they are asking us to pass this provision and we are dealing with thousands and thousands. Nobody will ever be satisfied but I should love to have the Minister bring in and defend a paper as to what the orders are going to be in respect of this. Subsection (3) says: …the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument impose conditions upon the local authority of the tenant. We do not know what they are. But we are going to pass this! This is carrying out a democratic process of search and determination to see that everything is fair and right and above board! And then they are going to specify a maximum amount of loan calculated in accordance with regulations made by order made by statutory instrument". By whom? By the Secretary of State. We do not know about that. We have not been told. So it goes on four times, four orders; and we do not know. The local authority must carry them out blindly and we must pass this and say that this is wonderful; that we entirely agree with all of it—with something that we know nothing about.

We are asking for one piece of information. We cannot get it. The local authority is not allowed to ask questions. Only the Secretary of State puts the questions into a form and it is filled in. Surely they are entitled to know this additional piece of information. We do not even say the local authority will determine what the other information should be. We leave it to the Secretary of State: as the Secretary of State considers necessary to allow the landlord or other body to consider whether the applicant is a suitable person to receive a loan under this section". If it is left in this way the Secretary of State does not need to add anything at all. He can decide that he does not want to ask any other questions, but other people may well be asking questions when they discover who has been getting loans from local authorities. No doubt the Daily Express and the other newspapers will soon tell us when something happens to an individual. They will say, "This is the kind of person to whom a local authority gave a loan of £10,000".

It was not the local authority, however; it was the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State will not be held responsible; it will be the message boy—it will be the local authority. Surely we should do something to safeguard the position of the local authority. I know the time is racing on, but I am just getting into my stride. I know, too, that the noble Earl will turn me down again. I would be disappointed if he accepted any of my amendments now, especially the one where I asked for not only correct information but full information. I dare say that that is the one where he is probably going to say, "Yes, it's worth thinking about".

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendments Nos. 51 to 57 not moved.]

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 58: Page 12, line 31, leave out ("subsections (3) and (6)") and insert ("subsection (3)").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment aimed at clarifying the status of a declarator for a loan granted by a sheriff to an applicant under Clause 5 where a housing authority has failed to fulfil its statutory duties under that clause. I beg to move.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Recovery of discount on early re-sale]:

10.38 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 59: Page 12, line 43, leave out from ("than") to second ("or") in line 44 and insert ("in the capacity of executor of the deceased owner").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical drafting amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 60: Page 13, line 21, leave out from ("secures") to the second ("the") in line 22 and insert ("the liability to repay a proportion of discount under this section").

The noble Earl said: I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 en bloc. These are pure drafting amendments. I beg to move.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 61: Page 13, line 32, after ("the") insert ("said standard").

On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall be agreed to?

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

This clause merits some examination and looking at, because it concerns the recovery of discount on an early re-sale. Noble Lords will remember that we referred to the fact that, after three years as a tenant—not necessarily the tenant of a particular house; a person could have built up his three years' qualification in some other house, in Northern Ireland, Wales, England, the Forestry Commission; anywhere but the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—he can buy his house. The day after he has bought it, he is entitled to sell it, and at the highest price he can get. But he is under some possible penalty because he is subject in the five years to repay in increasing amounts, according to the time that has passed since he bought the house, the discount. I do not think this will be any great handicap to a person. Having bought the house and re-selling it quickly, he is doing so to make a profit that will probably be considerably more than the discount, so he will gladly pay the discount before the expiry of the five years.

The proportion of the discount shall be 100 per cent. where the disposal occurs in the first year, 80 per cent. in the second year and reducing each year until the end of the five-year period. We are glad to see that there is some penalty on the quick profit "gentlemen", but are we satisfied that that is enough? There should be a penalty of 100 per cent. all through, and probably it could be even more: perhaps half of the profit made by the individual over and above the market price could be repaid to the local authority, taking into account the discount. I do not think that is a high enough penalty: the 100 per cent., 80 per cent., 60 per cent., 40 per cent., and then nothing at all. I am not entirely satisfied that this lengthy clause—it covers nearly a full page—is sufficient to prevent what may be speculation.

I know that there may be cases where because of a change in tenant on the death of a person the estate will have to be realised so there is inevitably a sale. I am concerned about the quick money guy. We just do not know what will happen to these houses and how this business will develop over the next five to 10 years. I can see all kinds of rackets arising from this, because it is going to be a good bargain for some people to buy their way in, to finance old people and then get the pickings. There is no end to what people will do in this country for money—and what people in this Committee can do for no money at all. I thought I was retired! But think of the Finance Act, and the trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes to close loopholes to stop someone making a "killing" out of some provision; and then he has no sooner closed that loophole than someone prises open yet another.

I should like to see a much stiffer attitude to this question of re-sales: that re-sales should he more strictly controlled than they are. There should be a penalty where there is evidence of speculation and people making a profit. They are making a profit out of the ratepayers. The rate-payers are dependent on us doing a duty by them.

I do not know how the Minister feels about that. It may well be that this is the amendment of mine that he is going to accept—that we leave out Clause 6. He has promised me one. He may find it difficult if I do not move the amendment that he is going to accept. I should like to hear whether he is satisfied that the action taken here in recovery of discount is enough to stop speculation and quick profit taking.

Viscount THURSO

I am not so much concerned with the speculator and the shark. In this instance, I should like some information on what happens in the event of a death. Let us assume that Mr. McTavish or Mr. Smith buys his house, and he makes a will and leaves the house to his son hoping that he will live for five years, expecting that he will live for five years, and then he is stricken down in the prime of life and his son inherits. Is this deemed to be a sale? Is this deemed to be a disposal? And if so, is the son then deprived of 100 per cent. of the discount? It would seem to be an unnecessary hardship to impose at such a time, and I wonder whether this would happen and whether it is intended that it should happen.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I hope that this short consideration of Clause 6 will go some way to reassuring those of your Lordships who felt uneasy about a number of matters to do with the tenant's right to purchase his house. I hope the Government's view has been made plain again and again in the course of the evening: that we regard this as an important right, and further, that we hope and set store by the fact that there may be, and probably will be, considerable aids to mobility of labour if there is a larger proportion of people in Scotland who in fact own their houses, and if they have to move in order to get a new or a better job, as it were, can therefore do so, either by selling their house more quickly and buying another one, and perhaps more especially doing so with a little money behind them which they can get on the sale.

I hope also that when noble Lords consider Clause 6 they will be comforted to some degree over the matter of the three-year qualification. We had quite a long debate about that, which I shall not go into again, as to whether it should be three, five or eight years. I took the view, and I am reinforced in it now that I come to address my mind to Clause 6 again, that three years is about right, and I think that if there is—

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

If the noble Earl will allow me, he did promise to give reconsideration to this. Does this mean he has been sitting here thinking about this, and has come to the conclusion that three years is right, when he suggested to noble Lords on both sides of the Committee that it might well be five?

The Earl of MANSFIELD

Reconsideration is an on-going process, to quote the trendy phrase, and there is reconsideration and reconsideration, and those of us who can think like lightning on our feet can reconsider all sorts of things as we do that. But I hope, speaking seriously for a moment, that the compendiousness of the Government's proposals will be taken into account by those who are uneasy about some of these things.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, talked about what he calls "quick money", and he is always quick to see suspicious motives in anybody who buys a council house and later wants to sell it. I think he should realise that if anybody buys their council house and then sells it again, they are going to need somewhere to live, and therefore one assumes that they just do not pocket the money and go off on a cruise, not unless they wish their living conditions thereafter to be purely ephemeral. But people do move, I should remind the noble Lord, for genuine reasons, and I suggest that it would be unreasonable to penalise them unduly because they want to sell their council house which they have bought.

How much and how penal are the provisions? As the noble Lord has reminded us, the discount, as it were, is phased away over the five years, going down from 100 per cent. to nought. I should have thought that this is a reasonable way of looking at the person who sells his home. If he does so within a year—and there could, I suppose, be an element of speculation about that; there may very well be—he then finds that he is not going to enrich himself unjustifiably at the expense of the taxpayer. That, I think, is right; but the further off he is from the time when he bought his own house, then the less he has to repay until he comes to five years—and let us remember that it is eight years at least since he moved into that house.

Lord ROSS of MARNOCK

Not that house.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

The noble Lord is quite right—eight years since he went into public sector housing; so he does not have to give back any of the discount at all. It is possible to read something suspicious and unworthy in almost anything to do with human activity or endeavour, but I should have thought that this clause was eminently reasonable, and I would suggest that it gets the approval of your Lordships.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, put a point to me which is answered in Clause 6(1) of the Bill. Inheritance, in effect, is not deemed to be a disposal, so the unfortunate series of happenings which he postulated to your Lordships will not bring in the disallowance of the discount in the way that he feared. I suggest that this is probably the moment to look reflectively and calmly at Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill and thereafter to conclude that this clause should take its part in the Bill as it stands.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.