Lords Sitting of 16 July 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

DECADE FOR WOMEN CONFERENCE: UK PARTICIPATION
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (a) what information they have made available to the press and public about the United Kingdom's participation in the United Nations "Decade for Women" Conference to be held in Copenhagen from 14th to 30th July 1980, and (b) what organisations and individuals have been consulted in drawing up the brief for the United Kingdom delegation.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government announced on the 18th March that my noble friend Lady Young was to lead the United Kingdom delegation. A press briefing was held on the 2nd July. Members of the delegation have held discussions with non-governmental organisations and have given radio interviews. A fact sheet on Britain and the United Nations decade is on sale through the Central Office of Information. The Women's National Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, who are represented on the delegation, have been consulted on the briefing: where appropriate, suggestions put forward by non-governmental organisations have been included. There will be a debriefing session for non-governmental organisations after the conference.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he recognise that many women's organisations not covered by the Women's
1768
National Commission feel that wider consultation would have been very helpful since the conference is covering matters of great concern to a large number of women, and very much hope that such consultation will take place on any future occasion?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I understand that a number of non-governmental organisations who are not included in the delegation will be attending the conference as observers. As for the selection of the delegation, that was the responsibility of the Government, of course; but since it was not possible to include representatives of all the NGOs who had expressed interest, it was decided that the fairest way of representing them on the delegation would be to take representatives of the two main umbrella bodies, the Women's National Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Lord let the House know what action is being taken by those who are attending the conference on behalf of our Government with regard to the gangster Leila Khaled who was arrested and deported from this country, and who has now been admitted because the Danes say that the United Nations have asked her to attend? Will the noble Lord see to it that she and other gangsters of the PLO are not included in a meeting of women, of all people, who are concerned about children and about women, and about civilians who are being attacked by these vicious criminals?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we certainly hope that the conference will concern itself primarily with the matters for which this decade was originally envisaged. We also hope that the conference will therefore not embark upon political activities—hyper-political activities, if I could call them that—of the sort described by the noble Lord.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, how can you possibly describe this as being anything other than terrorism and criminal activity? How on earth are we going to get on when the United Nations itself authorises these barbaric criminals to attend such a meeting? It is not a question of political matters at all. It is

1769
a question of people who have been deported from this country being accepted because the United Nations wants them to attend. Is that not shocking?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot answer either for the Danish Government or for the United Nations. But of course, as I have said on numerous occasions from this Box, we condemn terrorism from wherever it comes.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I was quite surprised to hear the noble Lord say that he did not—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he said that he did not want the women to be discussing politics or hyper-politics? Are not the care of children, employment for women, and all the things that women are interested in just as important political issues as what the men think are important events?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, of course, my Lords. We very much support the primary motivation which caused the establishment of the decade to which I have referred, and indeed this conference which is now taking place.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are extremely grateful that he did consult that rather unsung and very hardworking organisation, the Women's National Commission, and of course the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that we should like them not merely to consult them but to really take notice of the policies that they recommend? Is the noble Lord further aware that if women had been consulted more often we should not be in half such a mess as we are today?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I rise with trepidation to answer that particular supplementary. However, the two bodies to which the noble Baroness referred were more than consulted; they are on the delegation.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether any
1770
woman has been sent from the United Nations' Third Committee, the Human Rights Committee, which has always had a delegate?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I have a list of the British delegates in front of me, including one from the British Mission to the United Nations in New York, but I cannot say without looking into the matter whether there is anyone such as the noble Baroness describes.
Lord BROCKWAY: Is the Minister able to indicate, my Lords, the nongovernmental organisations which have been consulted? Do they include, for example, the Women's Institute, the Women's Co-operative Guild and the Liaison Committee of Women for Disarmament? What are these organisations?
Lord TREFGARNE: Again, my Lords, the list is long. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him with the details.

INTEREST RATES AND BANK PROFITS
2.44 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the call made recently by Mr. Walter Goldsmith, Director General of the Institute of Directors, for clearing banks to reduce voluntarily their current windfall profits by temporarily lowering the rates of interest charged to small and medium-sized commercial borrowers to no more than one or two percentage points above MLR, thereby helping British industry at this critical time.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, rates of interest charged to individual borrowers are a matter for the banks themselves. The best service the Government can give is to maintain their present policies which will bring down inflation and allow progressive reductions in inter-

1771
est rates. As the noble Lord is aware, MLR and bank base rates have already been reduced by one percentage point.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, somewhat non-committal though it was. Is he aware that the Daily Telegraph suggested in a recent leading article that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, had made a mistake in not imposing an excess profits tax on the banks in his recent Budget? With that in mind, would the noble Lord agree that it would be a most public-spirited gesture on the part of the banks if they were voluntarily to reduce the rates of interest on overdrafts and loans to smaller companies at this extremely difficult time, particularly bearing in mind that the number of liquidations in the first six months of this year is three times as high as in the similar period of 1979?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, to answer the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the question of a tax on the banks' windfall profits was dealt with in the Budget speech of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th March and I have nothing to add to what he said on that occasion, other than that with the fall in MLR, and we hope the progressive reduction in interest rates, this will reduce the level of windfall profits accruing to the banks. So far as the second part of his supplementary question is concerned, it is of course a very proper activity for both representative bodies such as the institute of Directors and newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph to make representations to the banks, but it does not follow that it is the function of the Government to do so.

PUBLIC SECTOR PURCHASES: AEROSPACE PRODUCTS
2.46 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the policy announced to the
1772
National Economic Development Council on 2nd July of encouraging public sector authorities to purchase British products will apply to the purchase of British aircraft and other aerospace products.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the approach outlined to the National Economic Development Council on 2nd July by the Secretary of State for Industry was to encourage closer relationships and discussion of forward plans by public sector suppliers. It therefore includes the purchase of aircraft and other aerospace products.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware—as of course he will be—that since my Question was tabled the decision to buy Jetstream has been announced? May I be allowed to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on this application of the new policy? Would the noble Viscount agree that, given the necessary determination from everyone concerned, including the workforce—and I am sure that will be forthcoming—that purchase could lead the way to a new competitive position in the market for that size of aircraft? May I also ask whether this new policy of the Government will mean that British Airways will now take a more constructive view of the possible purchase of British aircraft?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I must first tell the noble Lord that, while there has been much press comment, on the accuracy of which I cannot remark, the decision in relation to Jetstream or its rival has not yet been taken. However, the new policy will be fully taken into consideration in arriving at that decision. In relation to British Airways, I know that the noble Lord, with his great experience of trying to supply them and other airlines, has from time to time suggested that their policy has not always been most helpful to British industry. I also think he would agree with me that he has never asked that they should be ordered to buy British at all costs, and that value for money, early contact and working together on development is the

1773
key to this, which he has advocated, and those are the factors which will be operated in the new policy.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that other aerospace projects include flight simulators, which are a vital part of pilot training and whose British manufacturers have in the past suffered badly, like aeroplanes, from transatlantic competition?
Viscount TRENCHARD: Yes, my Lords; the new policy will cover all products where British industry can offer the right product as good value for money.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I have never asked that British products should be purchased irrespective of cost? In connection with British Airways, it is entirely within the ambit of the Secretary of State's declared policy that I am asking the Minister to agree that they should look at the possibility of purchasing British aircraft in a more constructive way than has been apparent in the last two or three years.
Viscount TRENCHARD: Well, my Lords, I am not able to give an informed judgment on the degree of constructive purchasing policy of British Airways in previous years. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the new policy is designed to ensure that all purchasing authorities do their very best to drag forward new British technology and to look at the needs in order to produce not only what the purchasing authority itself may want, but what may also sell on the world markets, and in that way to be able to secure better value for money in the long term as well as the short term.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can my noble friend make any comment on British Airways removing the word "Airways" from American aircraft, thereby leaving on the aircraft the word "British" when in fact they are not British?
Viscount TRENCHARD: No, my Lords.

THE HOMELESS: PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION
2.51 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is anticipated that the old Charing Cross Hospital will be closed as a shelter for many homeless people and what other arrangements are being made to replace this necessary accommodation.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, St. Mungo Community Housing Association has been given notice to leave the old Charing Cross Hospital in December 1981. The association has set up an Alternative Accommodation Working Party, which is now seeking suitable alternative premises. The working party includes representatives of the GLC, the City of Westminster housing department, the Departments of the Environment and of Health and Social Security, the Housing Corporations and Church organizations.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will the report of the working party, and indeed the alternative accommodation, be available by 1981? I ask this because it is estimated that about 1,500 people sleep out at night in the London area. Has the noble Lord been to the Embankment and to the area under Charing Cross Bridge in order to see whom I might describe as tragic specimens of human beings sleeping out there every night?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I cannot say whether alternative accommodation will be ready by the time mentioned. I should like to stress that everybody involved is in fact most concerned about this matter. I am aware of the situation to which my noble friend refers, although I am sure that she does not wish to imply that all the 1,500 people she refers to are housed (if that is the right word) in this particular hostel. Certainly this

1775
is a problem of great concern, and it is being treated as such.
The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the closing of the old Charing Cross Hospital will create a situation of the utmost seriousness? Is he also aware that the voluntary associations involved in providing accommodation in such places as Centre Point, or the Crypt of St. Peter's, Eaton Square, are stretched to the utmost? Will the noble Lord give all possible encouragement to facilitate the progress of the working party and to see that it is able to provide adequate alternative accommodation when the old hospital finally ceases to be available to the St. Mungo Community Housing Association?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I readily confirm that we are indeed very concerned and that we know of the situation to which the right reverend Prelate refers. I am also able to say that the Housing Corporation has earmarked funds, and I suspect that at the end of the day finance will be a key factor in dealing with this problem. I repeat that everyone involved is indeed aware of the problem which would arise if by December 1981 alternative accommodation of some kind is not provided.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that while in a matter of this kind it is desirable to involve a number of Government departments, particularly those departments that are either directly or indirectly concerned, experience has shown that where several Government departments are involved it is extremely difficult to reach a decision within a reasonable time?
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, my Lords; I entirely accept that. I think that the problem arises here because a number of bodies recognise the importance of the matter. The association that is running this particular hostel I should have thought very successfully has managed to involve everybody who might be able to make a contribution to solving the problem. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about the possibility of difficulties arising if too many people are involved, but I believe that in this instance everyone is so seized of the problem that
1776
the fact that a number of people are involved is probably not in any way disadvantageous.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has given the date of December 1981, when everyone knows it is likely to be rather cold in this country, can he answer two questions? First, how many people are at present housed in the old hospital? Secondly, can he assure the House that the old hospital will not be closed if alternative accommodation is not ready at the time mentioned, bearing in mind that the weather then will be bound to be inclement?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the number of people involved is 350. I cannot give my noble friend an assurance in regard to what will happen to the hospital. However, bearing in mind that in one sense the date is a long way off, yet in another sense it is not, since it is necessary to consider what has to be done to provide alternative accommodation, I can give my noble friend an assurance that everyone is looking very closely at what might be done in the unhappy event of an alternative not being ready by that time. This is a matter which even now, 17 months ahead, is being actively considered. I hope that that will be some encouragement.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is to be done with the old Charing Cross Hospital?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it belongs to the Metropolitan Police. It has for some time now been occupied by the association in question, on a virtually no-payment basis—a peppercorn basis. But, as I say, it is in the ownership of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, what are they going to do with it?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I understand that the Metropolitan Police have plans to redevelop it entirely.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, first, we should like to know for what purpose the Metropolitan Police are to redevelop the old hospital. Secondly, bearing in mind

1777
the present crisis in housing, and the fact that the numbers of homeless are not decreasing but are probably increasing, I think the House would like to know, not so much about when the working party finishes its task, or in what way it is composed, but, rather, whether we can have an undertaking that if it does not come to an agreement or cannot find alternative accommodation the Government will step in and ensure that there is refuge for the 350 people? After all, 350 is not an enormous number. It is about that question that we should like to know something more.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I thought that I had already said that in fact the Government as such do not step in. When these situations arise—and there are precedents—various bodies become involved. For example, I understand that the GLC has confirmed that in the unhappy event that an alternative is not found by the time mentioned, the association may nominate people for a number of GLC dwellings. Secondly, I have already referred to the fact that the Housing Corporation is earmarking substantial funds to help in this matter. One cannot get away from the fact that at the end of the day the local authorities would have to be involved, and of that they are certainly aware.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to look again at his reply to me? I referred to 1,500 people who are homeless in the London area and who sleep out every night. Where are they going to go?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the whole question of the provision of hostel facilities for what is undoubtedly a very unhappy section of the community is the subject of a report which I believe my honourable friend in another place said he hopes to make available before too long. I believe that the report will confirm what my noble friend Lady Vickers has said, and I think that it will help to make it clear that the problem is a very real one, as I said when I started to answer the Question.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware in particular of the extent to which homelessness is affecting the young people in London, especially in
1778
East London, where bodies such as Kipper are trying to provide some kind of accommodation in old ruined buildings? Cannot something be done urgently to help in that particular field?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, we are tending to move away from the Question regarding the hostel, but of course I take the point that the noble and learned Lord makes. That kind of problem is very real, and has been so for a very long time. What one can do about it is the subject of constant debate.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Lord further expedite the matter when I inform him that I found in the basement yard of my office a man who had been dead for some weeks, and who obviously had no other place to which to go? This is a very serious problem indeed.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, all that the noble Lord says only endorses, I think, what my noble friend has said; and no one is seeking to deny that this is a very real problem.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider the temporary use of St. George's Hospital, which I believe stands empty, or soon will?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I cannot comment on that as such. If it is a suggestion which my noble friend makes, then of course we will have a look at it.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Trenchard will repeat at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon a Statement which is to be made in another place on the postal monopoly.
It may also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately an hour. The Summer Time Order will be taken during this adjournment.

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING BILL
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt.:

Clauses 1 and 2

Schedule 1

Clauses 3 to 17

Schedule 2

Clauses 18 to 28

Schedule 3

Clauses 29 to 34

Schedule 4

Clauses 35 to 58

Schedule 5

Clause 59

Schedule 6

Clauses 60 to 66

Schedule 7

Clauses 67 to 72

Schedule 8

Clause 73

Schedule 9

Clauses 74 to 76

Schedule 10

Clauses 77 to 95

Schedule 11

Clauses 96 to 106

Schedule 12

Clauses 107 and 108

Schedule 13

Clauses 109 to 114

Schedule 14

Clauses 115 and 116

Schedule 15

Clauses 117 to 124

Schedule 16

Clauses 125 and 126

Schedule 17

Clause 127

Schedule 18

Clauses 128 to 133

1780

Schedule 19

Clauses 134 and 135

Schedule 20

Clauses 136 and 137

Schedule 21

Clause 138

Schedule 22

Clause 139 to 141

Schedule 23

Clause 142 to 147

Schedule 24 and 25

Clause 148 to 150

—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL
3.2 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, on behalf of my friend Lady Young, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Claw of Ashbourne.)
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we on this side of your Lordships' Chamber have made no secret of the tact that in our view this Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill, and one which we believe will bring lasting discredit to the Conservative Party. It is a Bill devoid of feeling, understanding and sympathy, and it is one about which I am sure many Government supporters feel unhappy. But, unfortunately, only a few (if I may be permitted to say so) have had the courage and the will to oppose the Government at certain stages. We on this side have not put down any amendments for today's stage of the Bill, as in our view it would be a complete waste of time. During the passage of the Bill we put down 36 amendments, and it was very clear early in the proceedings, as it was in the case of the first Social Security Bill, when we put down 58 amendments, that the Government had made up their mind that both Bills should be returned to the other place without any amendment at all.
Perhaps unfortunately for the Government, my Lords, the No. 2 Bill will not go back unaltered, because the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, with a good deel of help from noble Lords opposite, succeeded in winning her amendment to the

1781
effect that wives of doctors should be paid if they are acting as their husbands' secretaries. Perhaps it is not without—
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I only want to put the noble Lord right. It was not the Social Security Bill to which that amendment was carried; it was the Health Services Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. I should have said the Health Services Bill, which had its Committee stage last Thursday, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. But perhaps it is not without significance that noble Lords opposite are prepared to cut the meagre benefits of the unemployed and the sick, and those in receipt of invalidity and other benefits, while supporting the claim of a group who no doubt they know and represent, as distinct from a section of the community whose problems they do not know and, if I may say so, never will know.
The first Social Security Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament, and the Bill now before us, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, shortly to become an Act, are in our opinion a disgrace, and I would say to noble Lords who have not read the Bills from cover to cover that they will not come to any other conclusion if they do. They are swift-moving vehicles used by the Government to make savage cuts in the social security provision, including benefits which people contribute for when at work. I have in mind retirement, unemployment and widowhood. As a result of Government policy, it is estimated that an extra 110,000 people will need to claim means-tested supplementary benefits by 1982. Already we have about 5 million people, including dependants, relying on supplementary benefit, and this number is going to be added to as a result of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. The cuts made under this Bill will affect more than 1·8 million claimants who will lose benefit under the proposals, of whom 310,000 will lose more than £1 a week and 19,000 will lose more than £3 a week.
The worst features of this No. 2 Bill are the de-indexation of short-term national insurance benefits, and, in the case of the unemployed, the first reduction in
1782
benefit for 50 years. This, my Lords, will be the unkindest cut of all. No person who really understands what unemployment means could do this, but noble Lords opposite have done it, and I think that their action in doing it speaks more eloquently than anything I could say. It means a loss of £1·50 per week for a married couple, and £1·85 per week for a married couple dependent on invalidity benefit; and, with prices as they are—going up—this will mean a tremendous amount to them. I will resist the temptation to spell out what the Government's actions mean to the already badly off. It is a saga of callous indifference or of complete ignorance as to what is happening at present. Meanwhile, for those at work, 22 million of them will go on paying earnings-related contributions that will not be entitled to earnings-related supplements.
I take no comfort from the fact that the Government's policy is beginning to hit hard the very people they are pledged to assist and to whom they have referred from time to time. I am thinking of the small businessman. Company liquidations have reached a post-war record for the first part of this year, resulting in 1,500 compulsory liquidations; and bankruptcies are on the increase. In our view, the Government's monetarist policy is deliberately throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and their legislation is depressing the standard of living of those who are affected by their policies. So far as this Bill is concerned, we on this side of the House think that the Government have a lot to answer for. One of these days—sooner, I hope, rather than later—the depth of feeling against it will be made manifest.
Earl GREY: My Lords, like the Labour Party, we on these Benches are opposed to most of the clauses in this Bill. It is difficult to amend since on almost each clause it was a matter of for or against. Nevertheless, we regret that our Liberal amendments designed to protect the position of the disabled were not accepted. The Bill, as the Government have conceded, is simply a measure to save £500 million in pursuit of their economic policy. We regret that, if it was necessary to save such a sum, it was decided to save it at the expense of social security.
3.11 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, is it not ironic that we are discussing the Third Reading of this Bill today after having considered the expenditure yesterday of £5 billion on weapons of destruction? I am one of those who, with other noble Lords, sat throughout all stages of this Bill. Despite the amiability and the pleasant way in which the noble Baroness introduced the Bill, the fact cannot be obscured that it is a harsh and mean Bill. There are one or two points which struck me as the stages went on. First, the Government were not prepared to move at all despite all the pleas for the disabled. They were not even prepared to write into the Bill the assurance that we were told has been given by the Secretary of State to put back the position of the disabled on a level with the retirement pensioners when the benefit comes into taxation. There is no reason why that should not have been written into the Bill to give an assurance to the disabled, but the Government would not move. The whole of this Bill means that we are putting some of the economic responsibilities on to the weakest section of the community. That is the thing which came out clearly during all stages of the Bill.
Despite the Conservative manifesto promise to abolish the earnings rule with regard to retirement pensions, no move is made on that and even the question of abatement of the rule was not considered. Despite pleas from various sides of the House regarding the earnings-related supplement, the Government would not move on that. The fact that the insurance principle was no longer at stake was put forward, but the position was dismissed that there is some moral responsibility here. People believed they were entitled to earnings-related supplement. They believed it was a right. One cannot dismiss it by saying that the insurance principle no longer applies.
The other point made—and I made it in at least one debate—was that the Government dismissed the question of the opposition that some of us made to the reduction of unemployment benefit for those in receipt of occupational benefits of £35 or more a week. We put the case that some people found it necessary to retire long before they
1784
came to retirement age. Since the last debate on this, one point has come to my knowledge which I had not realised before; that is, the position of the police about whom noble Lords rightly paid a number of tributes. The police, I am sure, do not want special treatment, but they statutorily, compulsorily, must retire on or before they are 60 years of age. Many of them go into other employment. That sort of employment is now becoming less easy as public expenditure cuts go on, so that we find that the position of our own police now will be affected by this Bill. They will not be able to have unemployment benefit when they find there are no longer jobs for them when they must compulsorily retire before they are entitled to receive the normal retirement pension. In this Bill there are six clauses of harshness and meanness. These cannot be obscured by all the silky words and nice manner in which they were presented. As my noble friend said, the Government will regret that they have brought in a Bill of which they should be grossly ashamed.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should not like the Bill to pass without making a comment. It has been described as mean and as bad. I would prefer to call it a sad Bill. I have been active in the field of social security and pensions for a very large part of my life in voluntary organisations, when I had the privilege of serving in Government and when sitting on the Front Bench of the Opposition. With my noble friends, I think that this must be the first time that a Bill described as a social security Bill contained only clauses to abolish or reduce social security. The whole concept of social security, if we go back to the original Beveridge Plan, was that it would bolster up during the bad times those who were unfortunate enough to need to draw from it. We all pay into the pool in the hope that we shall not need to draw from this particular pool but that if we do so it would be there to support us.
My noble friend has referred to people who retire at 60. I mentioned that during the passage of the Bill. Can I again return to it? It is a curious anomaly that men who are forced to retire at 60 cannot draw retirement pension until they are 65; but if they are wicked enough

1785
to need some extra maintenance, they must now go to the supplementary benefits commission—which brings us to the nonsense of trying to save money, which is what this Bill presumably is intended to do. Indeed, all the Bills presented to us in this House appear to have one idea in mind, and that is to save money. We, as those who introduce legislation, are responsible for seeing that we present services and other opportunities to the unfortunate. This particular group will have to have some maintenance so that no money will be saved. Indeed, if we have two services running, it will cost more in the end to be administered. We have the final nonsense of the 60-year-old who would previously have been able to obtain unemployment benefit because he genuinely wants to work but now cannot do so because he will have to go to the supplementary benefits commission. I deplore the fact that we have not been able to change a single line in a Bill of this kind. We are not dealing with the rich; we are not dealing with people who have more of this world's goods than they need; but with people who need our support and encouragement. I feel that it is a sad day when a Bill of this kind goes on to the statute book.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, at an earlier stage I made an attack on the Government policy in relation to Clause 5. This has already been mentioned, but I want to make the point again for this reason. I have seen a letter from the National Association of Pension Funds. They implied in the letter that the Opposition had not been vigorous in relation to defending the interests of the occupational pensioners. I want to make it clear that we have done everything we can to influence the Benches opposite—without success. The fact is that we are not concerned about preserving the interests of the people over 60 who are not genuinely seeking work. We are interested in the person who is genuinely seeking work, who, by Clause 5, will be denied unemployment assistance because his occupational pension happens to be more than a specified amount. The question, in my view, is whether the Government in search of economies is entitled to repudiate a long-term insurance contract entered into with their citizens. The complete volte-face executed by the Government is based on expediency and
1786
not on principle. I urge, even at this late stage, some reconsideration of Clause 5.
3.20 p.m.
Lord MILVERTON: My Lords, there are some of us on this side of the House who are not completely happy with this Bill. I believe that it was on the second day of the Committee stage that I said that I was not completely happy and I was sorry that I had not been able to be present on the first day of the Committee when I would not have been able to support the Government. There are those of us on this side who are not happy and I know that some on the other side are aware of that. It may need courage to stand up and say this, but I hope that there are some on this side who still, if necessary, can have the moral and spiritual courage so to do. If you hold dear to anything, and if you really are a friend of a friend, you are prepared sometimes to say that you do not quite agree. On the whole, I hold dear to my party—I have not always —and as its friend once again I am bound to say that I hope this time it will be able to show that it has other matters to think about besides just cuts, and that it is also dealing with people, human beings, a man, a woman and a child who have a soul and a spirit.
3.22 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words as one of many who have been involved in the creation of the welfare state over many years; we fought for it and eventually saw its arrival after the Second World War. Make no mistake about it, my Lords, this Bill is a major erosion in the welfare state. The Government have set themselves up as a set of Robin Hoods, but robbing the poor to give the rich generous tax reliefs; and one of the penalties paid by the poor is this Bill.
On unemployment benefits, we have heard in the Bill of a number of cuts; but there are other worrying features coming forward. We are reading accounts of a Government idea to put the unemployed on social work schemes. Then we hear a noble Member of this House, Lord Gowrie, suggesting that there should be a cut in benefit for those not accepting. This is a further extension of the Government's attitude. Something I regret most of all in this Bill is that the amendments

1787
on invalidity benefits were not accepted. It is true that they were lost only by a narrow majority, one that would not have existed had it not been that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses who were outside the Committee probably came in and acted with party loyalty, forgetting the details of what we were discussing.
The invalidity benefits decision is hitting one of the worse off sections of the community two-fold, as I have stated time and time again. We have not only the cuts in benefit in this Bill, but throughout the country there are reductions in the social services by local authorities forced to cut their social services against their better judgment. Finally, there can be no pride for the Government in their calculated measures to hit the worse off sections of the community. It is the operation of an iron will without heart or understanding.
3.24 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like first of all to say that I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Young cannot be here to listen to the interesting debate that we have had. She has asked me to convey her apologies to your Lordships. As my noble friend said when she moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 2nd June, and as noble Lords are well aware from discussion on the clauses, although it is a social security Bill, its purpose is primarily financial. Leaving aside Clauses 7 and 8, which are broadly technical, Clauses 1 to 5 are entirely concerned with achieving savings in public expenditure. Limited savings will also accrue from Clause 6, although its prime purpose is the implementation of the Government's general election pledge to deal with the payment of supplementary benefit to strikers' families. The Bill can be properly considered only in the context of our present economic difficulties and of the Government's determination to tackle them.
Noble Lords opposite do not appear to have any sympathy with our wish to reduce public expenditure. I should like to remind them that the policy that we are carrying out, which is to reduce public expenditure as much as we can, is the same policy that the IMF imposed on the last Labour Government. Whether we are doing it in the same way as the Labour
1788
Government have done is another matter, but we have to make economies.
Noble Lords opposite have also expressed their weariness with our reiteration of the public expenditure arguments. I understand their feelings, but it is no use ducking the facts; and I must state again the importance we attach to reducing public expenditure. The Government are committed to this: it is a vital part of our strategy to set the economy on the right course, and to get inflation under control. In the White Paper published in March we stated that we intend to reduce public expenditure by 4 per cent. in real terms over the period to 1983–84. All public expenditure programmes were scrutinised, and the social security programme could not be exempt. That programme now costs some £20 billion a year—around a quarter of all public expenditure—and is by far the largest single programme.
We have had to make reductions in other programmes; and, as noble Lords are well aware, those were by no means easy ones: the reductions in the housing programmes, for example, were far bigger. We cannot exempt a programme that accounts for a quarter of the total. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave details of the measures needed in his Statement on the up-rating made in another place on 27th March, expanding on the Chancellor's Budget Statement. This Bill is designed to put our intentions into effect. Nothing that can be said in support of any of the individual measures makes the changes as a whole easy or attractive. But, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place last Thursday, we are laying the foundations for economic and industrial recovery. This requires restraint in overall public spending.
My Lords, that is what lies behind the introduction of this Bill. We have said this in earlier debates in this House. There are signs that inflation is indeed coming under control, as we intended that it should. This indicates that we are moving in the right direction. Unpalatable though the measures in this Bill are, we believe they are essential if we are to achieve what the Government are committed to do in the interests of everyone.
The savings should be seen in proper perspective. Up to 1983–84 our plans

1789
still allow for real growth of nearly 4 per cent. The Bill will save a comparatively modest 1 or 2 per cent. of the social security budget. Hyperbole may have its place, but statements that the Bill signifies the demise of the welfare state are wildly extravagant. Moreover, such charges overlook the steps the Government have taken in the current difficult times to price protect retirement pensions, attendance allowance and war and industrial disablement pensions; and, by no means least important, the safety net provided by supplementary allowance. The benefits of supplementary pensioners and others on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit are being aligned with the contributory retirement pension rates. In addition, needy families with children will be given extra help through family income supplement and the child benefit addition for lone parents. Mobility allowance for severely disabled people unable to walk has had a special increase. The November up-rating will cost more than £3 billion in a full year.
The Government's policy has been to look for the necessary economies where there is some appreciable degree of justification. Three main areas have been chosen; firstly, among those benefits which ought to be taxed and are not; secondly, those benefits which are paid to people higher up the income scale; and, thirdly, those areas where existing rules for the receipt of benefit arguably require tightening. I trust your Lordships will bear with me as I bring out the main features of Clauses 1 to 6. We have traversed the ground fairly thoroughly and I shall be as brief as I can.
The case for the taxation of short-term benefits and invalidity benefit is widely accepted, since the consequence of non-taxation is that income obtained from benefit and earnings is worth more than an income of the same amount derived entirely from earnings. The Government have announced their intention to bring these benefits into tax in April 1982 or as soon as possible thereafter. In the meantime, as an interim step, Clause 1 provides for these benefits to be up-rated by five percentage points less than the prices forecast. The clause applies to the 1980 up-rating. Fresh parliamentary approval would be needed to extend it to the 1981 or 1982 up-ratings.
1790
The first full year's savings will be about £130 million net. This represents only about one-third of the revenue that would be received if benefits were taxed. The Government recognise that the clause does not cater for individual financial circumstances in the way that the tax system does. They also acknowledge that, as long-term benefits, invalidity benefit and its industrial injuries equivalent, unemployability supplement, differ significantly from the other benefits affected by this clause, which are for short-term contingencies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has therefore given an undertaking that, subject to the availability of resources, the rate of invalidity benefit will be restored to the same level as retirement pension once it is brought into taxation. The earnings-related addition to invalidity pension—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for just a moment? Perhaps I may intervene. He made a reference to hyperbole. I hope he will acquit anybody on this side or even on his own side of the House of hyperbole. We have been as moderate as we possibly could. In reference to the last points he was making, can he really say that nobody is going to suffer financially because of this Bill? I think it is very unlikely that anybody on any side of this House could really accept that point. It is a mean and a despicable Bill—we feel it so—and if he could show us that nobody will suffer financially we should be very grateful to him.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Baroness. I do not think I have said that nobody would suffer as a result of this Bill. I suggest that the noble Baroness reads in Hansard tomorrow what I have said, because I am certainly not aware of having suggested at all that nobody would suffer from this Bill. Clearly, if benefits are only partially up-rated—up-rated less than the expected increase in prices—there must be some suffering; there is no question about that. I would not suggest that hyperbole has taken place in this House, but certainly it did in another place.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAMES of HASTOE: My Lords, I thank the noble

1791
Lord for giving me time again. Whatever they said in another place, the feelings in this House are just the same, and we do not express them in hyperbolic terms. What we feel, and what everybody knows, is that the people who are going to suffer are the people who are least able to bear it. That underruns the entire Bill. That is what it is based on, and this is why we say it is a mean and a despicable Bill. If the noble Lord has any answer to that, again we shall be glad to hear it.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am afraid the answer is the same as the answers we have been giving throughout this Bill. It is no pleasure, I may say to the noble Baroness, for either my noble friend Baroness Young, my noble friend Lord Sandys or me to stand here and to discuss these measures, which we have already said are thoroughly unpalatable. It is a very uncomfortable operation to do this. I am not suggesting in any way that anyone in this House has said anything which should not have been said. If I did suggest that, I most certainly apologise to the noble Baroness.
I was saying that the earnings-related addition to invalidity pension under the new pension scheme is unaffected by the Bill, and, like earnings-related retirement pension, will continue to grow as the new scheme matures. As regards the short-term benefits, their level will be reconsidered when they are brought into tax, in the light of all the relevant factors, including the economic circumstances.
Clause 2 removes the requirement to increase annually the amount that can be earned by a retirement pensioner without it affecting his retirement pension. The effect will be to freeze the amount at its current level of £52 instead of raising it in November. We do not consider it right to proceed with the existing automatic increase of the earnings limit in the present economic difficulties, since, by definition, this would favour those with significant earnings in addition to their pension. The savings are about £1 million for every 1 per cent. rise in earnings over the year. The Government hope, subject to prevailing economic circumstances, to raise the limit next year. But we do remain firmly committed to abolishing
1792
the rule as soon as possible, and further work on the costings shows the cost of abolition to be substantially lower than hitherto envisaged, though still substantial.
Clause 3, which overall is intended to save about £20 million in a full year, makes two changes. Both of these will take effect in September. The first change provides that spells of incapacity of less than four consecutive days will not attract benefit. This will produce very modest benefit savings in an area where the brevity of the contingency reduces the risk of hardship. The second change reduces the linking period applied to incapacity and unemployment claims from 13 to eight weeks. The shorter period will mean that fewer separate spells of incapacity or unemployment will link, and so more waiting days without benefit will have to be served. People with short, widely-spaced spells of minor illnesses will be less likely to qualify for invalidity benefit, a benefit which is intended for the chronically sick.
The Government consider that the eight-week period should be sufficient to safeguard the interests of chronically sick people while still excluding those for whom the benefit was never intended. However, the Government have already made it clear that they will he monitoring the workings of the new linking provisions. I can now respond to the case stated by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at Report stage. I can give an undertaking that we shall report on monitoring of the change by the end of 1983. It is not possible to promise an earlier date for a more formal report, because it will naturally take some time for data on the post-change situation to accrue. The results of monitoring will be supplied as appropriate, and I have some new figures to supply now.
We have already explained that taking sickness and invalidity payment together, 64 per cent. of claims did not link at all with an earlier spell. In most of the minority of cases where Clause 3 will stop linking, the main effect will be that a further three waiting days have to be served, but most of those drawing invalidity benefit at a particular time are not affected by the linking rule because their incapacity is continuous. But looking at those cases where invalidity pen-

1793
sioners go back to work but then have a further linking spell, 80 per cent. would still link under the new linking rule. For the younger beneficiaries with the highest rate of invalidity allowance, the figure is 85 per cent.
Clause 4 provides for the reduction and eventual abolition of the earnings-related supplement which is payable on top of sickness, unemployment, maternity and widowhood benefits. The latest estimate of gross savings from abolition is £385 million in 1982–83. Where savings have to be found, it is better that they should fall on additional benefits for the higher paid rather than on basic benefits. Not only have successive Governments allowed the real value of the supplement to decline substantially, but its significance has been further reduced by the growth and improvement of occupational sick pay schemes, the introduction of maternity protection and the increased scope of redundancy payments.
Clause 5 provides for the abatement of unemployment benefit where a person aged 60 or over has an occupational pension in excess of £35 a week. In the present economic climate it is not sensible to pay full unemployment benefit to a group which includes a substantial number with little real interest in the job market and a retirement income that is not wholly consistent with their claim to be unemployed. Important details of these new arrangements will be considered by the new Social Security Advisory Committee when regulations are put to them after next November. We have been pressed to let them see as well those regulations which will have been made during the six months after passage of the Bill. There is scope for this retrospective reference, and I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who raised this point at Committee stage, by saying that we shall be considering seriously whether it might be better from the Committee's point of view to look at the overall regulations in this way, so that they can consider the new provisions in the round.
The main purpose of Clause 6 is not to secure public expenditure savings but to ensure that trade unions pay a reasonable proportion of the cost of the maintenance of their members who go on strike. We intend to achieve this by reducing the
1794
supplementary benefit otherwise payable for the striker's wife and other dependants by £12 a week. To complement this new rule we intend to provide in regulations for a special disregard of £12 a week strike pay paid by a trade union. Thus, if a union pays £12 a week strike pay, it will completely offset the £12 deduction. The burden on the tax payer will be correspondingly reduced, and a much fairer balance will be achieved in the responsibility for the support of the families of people on strike.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I confess that for my part I do not quite follow what he is doing. He seems to be reading a lengthy account appropriate for the Second Reading of a Bill and nothing else. What, with respect, does the Minister think he is doing to assist the House at the Third Reading stage of this Bill?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble and learned Lord does not think that what I am doing is suitable. I am simply making a closing speech at the end of the Third Reading, and the noble and learned Lord will no doubt be pleased to hear that I am just about to finish doing so.
There has been a great deal of criticism from noble Lords opposite that we have listened to none of their arguments and have made no amendments to the Bill. I fully understand their views. However, I would say that the House has considered the Bill very thoroughly. We have had 19 Divisions, we have had the benefit of the excellent contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and we have greatly profited by their expertise.
I should like to end by thanking all those noble Lords in all parts of the House who have taken part in the previous stages of this Bill, and particularly my noble friend Lord Sandys and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I know that all noble Lords will regret the absence today of my noble friend Lady Young, who has played such a major role in piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House. The changes that we have proposed in this Bill have been made after a great deal of heart-searching but unless immediate steps are taken to prune expen-

1795
diture judiciously and modestly, as part of the general effort to restore the economy, it is precisely the sick, the disabled, the unemployed and the elderly who will suffer most in the long term. For these reasons I commend the Bill to the House and I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
3.47 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that he had been indulging in a great deal of heart-searching. I wish he would search his heart a little more. I have been doing a little simple arithmetic, as distinct from making a long speech about the unimportant matters in the Bill, and the one very important matter. That very important matter is contained in page iii of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which is in the forefront of the Bill, and which says:
"11. The effect of subsection (1) of clause 4, if implemented in January 1981, would be to reduce benefit expenditure from the National Insurance Fund on earnings related supplement and widows' earnings related addition by about £65m in the calendar year 1981. This saving would be offset by expenditure on supplementary benefits of some £5m. Abolition of earnings related supplement and addition, under subsection (2), if implemented in January 1982, will result in a total reduction in benefit expenditure from the National Insurance Fund of the order of £360m in the first full financial year. This will be partly offset by increased expenditure on supplementary benefit which will be of the order of £75m".
If we condense that paragraph into a little sum and if we put cuts on the one side and offsets through supplementary benefits on the other, we get something like this: earnings related supplement and widows, a cut of £65 million; abolition of the earnings related supplement, £360 million: that makes £425 million of cuts. That is money which now goes into poor people's pockets but it will not go into their pockets in the future. These are offset by a total of £5 million and £75 million respectively under those two
1796
headings, making a total of £80 million. If you subtract from the £425 million of cuts the £80 million of offsets, you get cuts of £345 million. Then in a further clause of the Bill we get another cut in unemployment benefit of £25 million. The total cut in the amount going from State sources into the pockets of the poor and needy will be £370 million a year. I think the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing such a thing as this at this moment in history.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I think it is a pity if the noble Lord had these views that he did not let us have them at Committee stage, when we could have considered them.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the Government then have altered the figures?
On Question, Bill passed.

POSTAL MONOPOLY
3.50 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in the other place on the postal monopoly. The Statement reads:
"The House will recall that on 2nd July 1979 I stated that if co-operation to improve postal services were not manifest it would he necessary to review the Post Office's monopoly for the carriage of letters, and that I would be calling for reports of possible modifications to that monopoly, their practicability and implications, by the end of the year.
"I have received a report from the chairman of the Post Office and a report from officials in the department who consulted widely with persons and organisations throughout the United Kingdom with an interest in the postal service. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade referred the Inner London Letter Post to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Commission's report was laid before Parliament on 31st March, and published on 1st April.

1797
The Government have been discussing with the Post Office their response to this report, and I intend to lay before Parliament shortly the Post Office's programme of action to meet the Commission's recommendations.
"Members of the House will be aware of the widespread criticism of the postal service, particularly in the summer of 1979. I am glad to say that recently the quality of service to the customer as measured by the statistics furnished by the Post Office has shown a marked improvement, particularly in April and May this year. The service is now close to the Post Office's own target. It has moreover been encouraging to hear of the decision of the Union of Communications Workers to discuss with the Post Office measures to improve productivity and to bring about more efficient working.
"However, it has for some time been clear that the monopoly is more extensive than is sensible and that there are uncertainties in some of the key definitions in the Post Office Acts of 1953 and 1969. I have therefore decided that some changes are desirable. In coming to that decision I have taken into account the views expressed by those whom we consulted in the course of our review, the Post Office's own report on the monopoly, the views expressed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the quality of service received by the customer.
"There are certain categories of mail which it would be beneficial to remove from the monopoly. When the necessary legislation has been enacted I intend to relax the monopoly with respect to:
Time sensitive/valuable mail. Private operators will be free to carry such mail provided they charge a minimum fee subject to review by the Secretary of State. I propose that this minimum fee should initially be £1.
Document Exchanges. At present the document exchanges established in a number of the larger cities are able only to operate an exchange of mail at a common centre, and may
1798
not transport mail in bulk between those centres. It is intended to amend the law so as to enable them to do this.
Christmas Cards. The Government propose to amend the law so as to allow charitable organisations to deliver Christmas cards.
Inaddition the Government propose to amend the law relating to the monopoly in a number of other fields:
The Definition of a Letter. It is intended with the help of the Post Office to specify that a number of items are excluded from the definition of a letter so that those wishing to compete with the Post Office will not be deterred by confusion about the precise extent of its exclusive privilege.
Part Carriage by Private Operators. It is intended to amend the law to allow that where a letter at some stage goes through the Post Office network it may be carried for part of its journey by private carriers provided that it is first stamped. This will enable the large customer some freedom to avoid his mail being handled in those parts of the Post Office network known to give rise to delays.
Delivery by Wholly-Owned Subsidiary. At present there is no obstacle to individuals or companies delivering mail on their own account, but it appears that a wholly-owned subsidiary cannot deliver mail on behalf of its parent, or of other companies in the same group. It is intended to amend the law to rectify this anomaly.
Addressed Advertising and other new market demands. The Government will watch how the Post Office reacts to such market demands and will, if justified, make appropriate relaxations of the monopoly.
"In addition, the Government will seek to amend the law relating to the Post Office letter monopoly in order to provide powers for the Secretary of State to make further relaxations in respect of certain categories of mail. Moreover, we shall seek powers to remove the monopoly either in a local area or nationally. These powers will

1799
rest in my hands. I would intend to use them in the event of industrial action within the Post Office which resulted in a cessation or serious decline in the quality of service. I would also use the powers if, after due warning, the Post Office failed for reasons within its control to satisfy me as to its performance in serving the public. In deciding whether to use my powers I shall take into consideration the Post Office's record in relation to productivity unit costs, quality of service to the customer and its financial target. I am starting discussions with the chairman of the Post Office on whether the targets for the quality of service of first and second class mail are sufficiently rigorous.
"I believe these measures will stimulate greater efficiency within the postal service. Taken together, they clarify the law, open up to competition some parts of the postal monopoly and safeguard the general interest of the customer by making it clear that the letter monopoly is a privilege which the Post Office needs continually to justify through the quality of the service it provides.
"These changes will require legislation and the Government will bring proposals before the House in due course."
That is the end of the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. This Statement is notable not for what it actually says, but for what it implies. I think the House will be particularly concerned about the implications of the last part of the Statement. The powers which it is proposed to place in the hands of the Secretary of State concerning the removal of the monopoly are very worrying indeed. For example, the proposals could result in further inroads into the quality of the Post Office service provided in rural areas, particularly if the powers were used to do away with the Post Office's monopoly in the profitable urban areas. I am sure that this is a matter which the House will want to consider
1800
very seriously, when it comes to look at legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
The proposals made in the Statement must be looked at with suspicion. Certainly, they could represent a postal pirate's charter. With regard to the proposed amendments in the law which are included in the Statement, one wonders whether the Minister can give the House the definition of a "letter". I am told that even Victorian lawyers were unable to come up with an answer to that. One hopes that modern lawyers might be able to succeed in doing so. With regard to the paragraph concerning part carriage by private operators, the House will wonder exactly what this means. Does it mean that private operators can deliver to and collect from a Post Office, or does it mean that they can only deliver to a Post Office? The House would like some clarification of this particular paragraph.
I found this Statement very peculiar in a certain way, in that when the Minister was repeating it he said in his opening paragraph that the Secretary of State said that if there was no inprovement in the postal services
"it would be necessary to review the Post Office's monopoly for the carriage of letters".
Later on the same page the Secertary of State acknowledged that the quality of service to the customer, as measured by the statistics furnished by the Post Office, had shown a marked improvement. One finds it difficult to balance those two statements, and why the various proposals are necessary at all, in view of the improvement of the service which is acknowledged by the Secretary of State. We view this Statement with considerable suspicion, and shall scrutinise very thoroughly any legislation which comes before this House.
4.2 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, as one who instinctively leans against monopolies, I very much welcome almost the last words in the Statement, that the letter monopoly is a privilege which the Post Office needs continually to justify through the quality of the service it provides.
The Post Office never cease to tell us that the key to a more efficient postal service is a more widespread use of the postcode. But if you are initiating a

1801
correspondence and have no letter to reply to, how do you discover the postcode of the person at the other end? You can go to the Post Office and ask, and the information can be unearthed, but you do not make yourself very popular with the other people in the queue at the counter.
Surely, the only practical answer is to print postcodes in telephone directories. Shortly, we are going to have a separate telecommunications corporation responsible for telephone directories. They presumably are going to say that it will not be their business to clutter their telephone directories with information which is of benefit to a completely separate hived-off postal corporation. Therefore, will the Government, before this hiving-off of the telecommunications corporation takes place, make certain that postcodes are going to be printed in telephone directories. May I say, in parenthesis, that it really is not necessary for the London telephone directory to have the dialling code 01 printed on every line, and in Birmingham their dialling code on every line, and so on. You could have the dialling code at the top and bottom of every page of the directory, and you could thereby provide more space on every line of the directory in which postcodes could be inserted. If the Post Office are right, that would be the best step towards creating a better postal service.
4.5 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lords for their clear comments on the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, commented not so much in terms, as he said himself, of the Statement, but what—if I may use the phrase—he thought it implied. I have known my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry a long while. He has a habit of meaning exactly what he says, no more and no less.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also said that they had to view the Statement with suspicion and with a feeling that it might be a pirates' charter. I can assure him that this is not the case. The comparatively small—and they are comparatively small—derogations, which my right honourable friend plans at the present time, are clear evidence of the fact that we have taken full note of the need to retain the postal service as a
1802
whole and not allow the creaming off of the most profitable services.
I cannot help you on the definition of a letter. As the noble Lord says, I understand it has baffled the legal profession for a very long while. What we intend to do, however, is to try and clear up some areas of anomaly by declaring what is not a letter. Whether or not this will make the situation clearer, time will show but I have listened to enthusiasts on the matter.
I understand that the partial derogation in order to avoid the temporarily vulnerable delay-prone areas in the postal network—the partial dispensation in that respect—is designed to allow a firm to take its mail avoiding the worst area and put it either into a post office or post boxes outside that area. I do not believe —if I am wrong I will let the noble Lord know—it is in any way intended that there should be a system whereby it can descend on a post office and collect its mail.
The noble Lord referred to the contradiction in his mind on the quality of the service, which is improving. It is improving, it is not up to the targets which the Post Office has itself set; nor is there absolute clarity as to the full meaning of the surveys carried out by the Post Office on its own delivery record. Leaving that on one side, the reconciliation of the quality of service with the need to take powers to be able at short notice to go further in order to protect this vital service for the consumer, I do not believe to be incompatible at all.
My right honourable friend has paid tribute to the improvements in the delivery service. He has also mentioned all the other things which are necessary: the levels of productivity and efficiency which affect both the cash limits and the prices that consumers will be asked and are asked to pay; he has mentioned all those things. Against the record of performance of recent years which, praise be!, is moving in the right direction and with the co-operation from the Union of Communications Workers at the present time, nevertheless the performance of recent years seems to me fully to warrant the Government taking the powers to be able to act further if and when that proves necessary.

1803
In relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I will, if I may, leave the question of 01 until we come to make a Statement on the telecommunications side. He has raised the matter of postal codes before, and in a Post Office debate we have given fairly clear information on what is holding up the full utilisation of postal codes, which is a complicated subject which it would be wrong for me to go into this afternoon, but we note his repeated views on this point and will take them fully into consideration.
Lord ALPORT: May I ask my noble friend whether he will confirm that, in the exercise of his powers by the Secretary of State, the exercise of those powers will be subject to an Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount TRENCHARD: I understand that to be the constitutional position.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the improvement referred to on both sides of the House is a recent improvement on a previous deterioration? People who remember that you could get a letter delivered the next day after writing it in practically the whole of the United Kingdom will welcome any attempt to get back again to the excellent service that we used to enjoy. Could the noble Viscount give an explanation of why the Government have put a minimum charge of £1 on the special letter? Will the £1 charge cover only one letter or several letters going to the same place at the same time? And what is the necessity for the minimum charge to be instilled into the Statement?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, if I may deal only, in the time available, with the last part of my noble friend's question, the reason we have put in a minimum charge is to make sure that this is not a pirate's charter. In a service where some parts of the carriage of letters are inevitably more economic than others—where a large traffic is involved over short distances, on the one hand, compared with smaller and dispered traffic in other areas on the other—if there were no minimum charge, the steps we shall be taking could be tantamount to a very far-reaching breach of the monopoly and
1804
could lead to private operators competing with the Post Office for the most economic parts of its service. Proof that the Government have considered all sides of the question is that they have put in this minimum charge.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions. He has spoken of the concern of the Government for the consumer. Could I ask the Minister whether the Government would feel able to consider recommending cheap stamps for Christmas cards? This is a question which we have raised many times in this House. Is the Minister aware that, if we could have such a concession, if that be the right word, it would probably lead to a greater sale of Christmas cards, which would benefit the industry concerned? Is the Minister also aware that if such a concession were made, such cards could be posted well in advance—it might be even in October or at the beginning of November —to avoid the taking on of extra staff at Christmastime?
My second question is probably due to my misunderstanding of what the Minister said. I was not clear, when he spoke about private carriers being able to avoid stages where there was known to be delay in their mail, about whether they are first to stamp their mail. Could the Minister explain that further, because I am not clear about it? Does he mean that the private carriers should stamp their mail and should then do part of the Post Office's work by taking it to somewhere where there would not be delay? And how would one determine where there was delay?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the noble Baroness is among many who have made recommendtions in relation to Christmas cards and I shall draw her recommendations to the attention of the new chairman of the postal services. Some proposals in the past to ease the position on Christmas cards have been opposed by the workers in the Post Office. I very much hope that, as cooperation in that respect improves—it is improving and they have agreed to operate trial services which are leading to increased productivity at the moment—schemes like this may be able to be discussed again. I cannot commit the

1805
Post Office to recommendations but I will draw the chairman's attention to the noble Baroness's recommendation.
So far as the necessity for stamping mail, where the private person or company does part of the Post Office's job, is concerned, Yes, that is the requirement in the Statement that I have read and, Yes, it is a little illogical, if that was the noble Baroness's implied point. A company in London, for instance, in the summer of last year knew very well that its mail for the North of England would probably get along a bit faster if it were posted in Birmingham or Manchester, wherever they happened to have people going. Under the existing law, that is not allowed, even though the mail is stamped. Under the new law, when enacted in the next session, that will be allowed.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether—if we dismiss the details which have been omitted, many of which are objectionable, many of which will give rise to confusion, and certainly to increased charges—what he has indicated is the Government's general line of policy? Its purpose is to weaken the principle of nationalisation, if not to abolish it. The Government have succeeded in part in emasculating the National Health Service and they are now engaged upon stripping the assets of British Rail. Generally speaking, they are trying to dispose of the principle of nationalisation. However, they have not yet decided to denationalise the coal mining industry. I wonder whether that is a favour accorded to me, because I piloted the Bill through the House of Commons and through your Lordships' House. So far the Government have not attacked the principle of the nationalisation of the mining industry. When are they going to attack it? When are they going to attack and confront the miners? Why do they not admit that they are using a minority decision of the British electors at the last general election, for such it was, for the purpose of disposing of the high moral principles which were embarked upon by the Attlee Government? That is their purpose and they seem to be achieving it to a considerable extent, except for the likelihood of a great deal of disturbance and confusion in the community.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that the proposals are objectionable and will result in higher charges. One of the main purposes of the proposals is to try to ensure that the charges do not continue to escalate and the service to deteriorate. The noble Lord said that our objective is to weaken nationalisation and to attack the nationalised industries and that we are doing this on a minority mandate. I expect that his reading of the opinion polls is probably the same as mine: that one does not read all for gospel. Nevetheless, on the subject of nationalisation, every opinion poll in recent years has shown quite clearly that the bulk of the public, even if noble Lords opposite have not realised it, realise that nationalisation is inefficient and does not give them a good service. Our object therefore is not to weaken nationalisation or national services. Indeed, we are supporting the armed services in every respect that we possibly can. There are things which can best be done by the State. However, there is quite a lot of international evidence that the carrying out of some industries' functions by nationalised means is not always the most efficient.
However, in this statement my right honourable friend has quite clearly recognised that a national mail service is vital. That is why there is to be a minimum charge of £1 to prevent the pirating of a vital national service. But my right honourable friend does believe—and so does the public, and so do I—that there is room for greater efficiency if a bit of competition can be brought into the fringes of this service and into special services which do not really compete with the essential network service. I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the noble Lord's remarks on the coal industry, I am not prepared, in answering questions on a statement regarding the postal monopoly, to go into that particular point.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will my noble friend please accept that I really do not care too much about this particular argument about nationalisation but I have had the good fortune to live for 63 years in a very charming village in Scotland. Until the last two years we could post letters on Saturday and on

1807
Sunday up to five o'clock in the afternoon; now, with the modern Post Office, there is no possibility of posting letters after eight o'clock on Saturday morning, and that seems to me to be a most disgraceful situation in which no amount of private enterprise can come in and help.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is because of that situation that we are protecting the whole service and supporting the Post Office in all their efforts to improve the efficiency of the service again. The efficiency of the service is improving and they are moving towards their internal charter.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: It is going down, my Lords.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords—
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think we are in danger of breaching our own Standing Orders and turning this into a debate, which Standing Orders do deprecate, and I wonder whether we might perhaps move on.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the House agrees to that, can the noble Lord tell us by what coincidence it is that he always rises to make that proposal at the same time as I rise?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, perhaps it is because the noble Lord always rises on the 30th minute after the Statement has been begun.

TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOT LAND) BILL
4.22 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Rural areas: disposal of dwelling-houses
.—(1) Notwithstanding section 4 of this Act, where a dwelling-house purchased by exercise of a right under Part I of this Act is situated in an area designated by order of the Secretary of State as a rural area, the landlord may impose a limitation on the freedom of the purchaser to dispose of the dwelling-house in the manner specified below.
(2) The limitation is, subject to subsection (4), that, until such time (if any) as may be notified in writing to the landlord there will be no disposal without the written consent of the landlord: but that consent shall not be withheld if the disposal is to a person satisfying the condition stated in subsection (3) below.
(3) The condition is that the person to whom the disposal is made (or, if it is made to more than one person, at least one of them) has, throughout the period of three years immediately preceding the application for consent, either—

(a) had his place of work, in the rural area; or

(b) had his only or principal home in such an area.

(4) If the Secretary of State consents, the limitation specified in subsection (2) above may be replaced by the following limitation, that is to say, that until the end of the period of ten years beginning with the purchase of the dwelling-house there will be no disposal unless—

(a) the purchaser has offered to reconvey the dwelling-house to the landlord for a consideration equal to the amount agreed between the parties or determined by the district valuer as being the amount which is to be taken as the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made (subject to the recovery of discount on early re-sale under section 6 of this Act); and

(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month after it was made.

(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent a court from making an order transferring the dwelling-house or part thereof to the spouse of the purchaser, or a successor from inheriting the title to the dwelling-house.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, which is a new clause dealing with the problem of the rural areas and the disposal of dwelling-houses therein. Reference has been made more than once to the manifesto commitment of the present Government at the last election and how deeply they feel about carrying that out. It was to give a right in respect of the purchase of local authority houses to the tenants, but they did admit that there were special difficulties in the rural areas and that they would deal with them. There is no doubt at all that when

1809
the Bill was published it received a very dusty reception from rural area councils in Scotland: from Skye, Lochalsh, from Perth and Kinross; from Shetland, from Tweeddale, from Kincardine and Deeside; from East Lothian, Nairn District Council—they all wanted to be exempted in respect of the rural areas, and the Western Isles and Roxburgh expressed their concern about the possibility of council housing being used for second homes and for holiday homes.
There is no doubt at all that when people think of local authority housing they tend to think of forests of multistorey flats and of great sprawling schemes, with all their problems, on the edges of towns and cities. But the pattern of local housing in respect of the rural areas is a very different matter. In small villages there are pockets of 20 houses, or it may well be only six. It may be an area without a village at all but with about 10 houses, where the purchase of houses for owner-occupation is not something that can be achieved by the younger inhabitants there who are seeking a home. Wages tend not to be as high and I think we must face that fact.
There was a report from the Scottish Office on rural housing which said that many people are not able to command incomes sufficient to meet their basic housing needs in the private sector, and that reliance on the local authority as a major force in adequate housing provision will continue and probably increase. If we are going to make it more difficult for the local authorities by virtue of the sale of existing lettable houses, certainly they will remain as houses, certainly the tenants will remain in them, but on resale, what will happen? That is the point about which we are concerned in this amendment. We are not denying the right for the existing tenant to purchase his house but we are saying that when he comes to the point of reselling it, certain things should apply.
I think it is a fairly reasonable amendment, wonderfully drafted; it ought to be impeccable. I did not draft it; it was drafted by the Department of the Environment and your Lordships will be familiar with it because it was the protection offered to the rural areas in England.
The problems are the same. The suggestion was made in another place that the problem of holiday homes was not so bad in Scotland. I do not entirely agree with that, but the problem is not one of holiday homes; it is the one that was pinpointed by the Scottish Office itself saying that there is need and there will be even greater reliance in the future on local authorities to provide houses to let for people who want to stay and to work in the rural areas, while, if these houses are resold after the first time, they may certainly pass out of the control of the local authority but there is no saying who will come in.
I read the report of the debate in another place and I was impressed by the speeches that were made by Members from the Highlands and from the Borders, and I think it was the leader of the Liberal Party who pointed out that in his village the number of local authority houses is four: two are sold and there are only two left. The chance for a young couple getting married and wanting to get one of these houses if it becomes available, is nil. So what happens? The young people leave the villages and go into the towns and not just to the neighbouring small towns or villages that they know. They swell the populations in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness, and we get this depressing concentration of problems in the cities and depopulation in the rural areas. We must guard against this.
At the Committee stage in another place the junior Minister thought he had found a solution. The solution is this: he will not do anything just now but he will watch the situation and if in a designated rural area a third of the houses are sold and then re-sold he will look at the position and if an unspecified number of them are for holiday homes, then he might act. That is the protection that is offered in Scotland. Since that was passed at the Committee stage of course there has been no alleviation of the fears of the rural local authorities. Just imagine it. Somebody suggested that it was closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. It is thinking about closing the stable door after about a third of the horses have bolted. In other words, the crisis is already reached; then the Secretary of State thinks he will look at the position, and then only if so many of them are

1811
holiday homes—we do not know the number—he will act. But if you go to the Border rural areas, if you go to an area outside Glasgow, outside Stirling, outside Inverness, you find that many people with the means to do it are moving out into the country. Some of these houses are an attractive proposition. I am perfectly sure many noble Lords will appreciate the quality of many of these houses, and their beauty. So there is that possibility of attack there, not for holiday homes but for places where people would live and commute into the towns. We have got the same thing in relation to the pressure in the village itself, people going for owner-occupation buying specially built houses. This is the thing that drives up the price and enhances the pressure upon the local authority lettable houses.
We really must do something about this. What I am suggesting here is the least we can do. It is not attacking the principle; we are saying yes, the sitting tenant has the same right as anybody else to purchase the house, but when it comes to resale of the house then an option must be given to the local authority if certain conditions are abided by. What are those conditions? That the person to whom he sells
"has, throughout the period of three years immediately preceding the application for consent, either had his place of work in the rural area or had his only or principal home in such an area".
If the Secretary of State consents—and the Secretary of State is in here all the time—that particular subsection (2) can be replaced and set aside if the seller has already offered the house to the local authority and they have turned it down at some previous time. This is an option not starting at the time of sale but on resale.
Bearing in mind the fears of the local authorities, they would be concerned to get on with the building of more houses, which is one of the solutions to the problem, but in the present situation they just cannot do it and the Secretary of State will not allow them to do it. We have been hearing time and time again the things that the Government are doing to cut down capital expenditure, and one of the things that the cuts have already affected is new house building. I instance the fact that was brought out in Com-
1812
mittee by the Member for Inverness, Mr. Russell Johnston. Inverness wanted to build about 308,000 and they are not being allowed to build half of that. So the pressure builds up.
There is another point to be appreciated here. Although this protection is given in England and not in Scotland, there are those who would argue that they need it less in England, for the simple reason that the vexed problem of the tied house, which has concerned people in the farming industry for a long time, has been solved in England by a Bill which virtually ties up that where a worker has to leave a tied house the local authority will provide a local authority house. That is not so in Scotland; there is no protection for anyone in a tied house in a rural area in Scotland. It was always felt it was unnecessary, both by the farmers, which is not surprising, and also, which is surprising, by the union representing the farm workers. Personally, as Secretary of State I never had any problem about this. People know that the local authorities in Scotland have been accommodating in these circumstances.
However, the circumstances are now changing. If a local authority house is given to a farmworker, he then is in a position to sell the house with the same freedoms as anybody else. There may be a reluctance on the part of the local authority to be as generous as they are without any statutory duty to do it. So there is even more pressure in Scotland and less protection in respect of the rural population than in England. What I and my colleagues are proposing is that we would adopt this new clause, which gives exactly the same protection in Scotland as is available in England; it will help at least to give some protection to stabilise the position and not worsen the position of those wanting to live in their own countryside. I beg to move.
4.37 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: This is an important and interesting new clause, one which would bring the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill more into line with the Housing Bill which covers the same problems in England and Wales. It would also help to deal with this problem, which has been referred to again and again in debate in your Lordships' House

1813
and in this Committee, the problem of rural areas. This is a very real problem and one which cannot be ducked and must not be ducked, and we have tried at earlier stages of this Committee to deal with it. I think here possibly we have a proposal which could deal with the whole problem of safeguarding the supply of houses in rural areas in one amendment. Therefore, from these Benches we support this amendment.
I would offer one word of criticism of it and that is that the definition of a rural area is left entirely open to the Secretary of State. I would have preferred to see a "rural area" defined, so that it is not then the plaything of any changing Government, and so that people in rural areas know what is meant by the term. But perhaps that could be done at a later stage, at Report stage perhaps by tightening the definition. The fact that I do not feel that the term "rural area" has been sufficiently tightly defined does not in any sense, in my view, invalidate this amendment. This new clause is a valuable one which I think merits the support of this Committee, and which would improve the Bill considerably in its passage through your Lordships' House. I would, therefore, support it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This amendment, which has been imported by the noble Lord from England, will, I suggest, not have the felicitous results for which he no doubt hopes. As the noble Lord said, it is in fact modelled on the provision in the Housing Bill relating to rural areas. It would restrict purchases of council houses in rural areas designated by the Secretary of State in one of the following ways: firstly, by restricting resale to purchasers who have lived or worked in the area for the past three years, unless the local authority agrees otherwise; secondly, if the Secretary of State gives permission by the imposition of a preemption condition. I say at once that the way in which this amendment came to be written into the English Bill was to satisfy a set of conditions which simply does not obtain in Scotland. It is in any event unacceptable. I and the Government have made it clear on numerous occasions as regards this Bill that we do not consider that the widespread use of pre-emption conditions is justified. Indeed, we think that the
1814
conditions in which a pre-emption clause may be written in should arise on the rarest of occasions. One of those occasions, or one set of circumstances is, of course, contained in Clause 4(7).
So far as time is concerned, we perhaps slightly over-indulged ourselves in some of our consideration of earlier amendments and so we galloped through Clause 4 without subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for one, promised to give it. However, I do not complain of that. But the fact of the matter is that if this amendment were agreed to we would have two different and differing provisions as part of the same Act.
I return to the pre-emption clauses. If at this stage I put the Government's case rather more fully than I have for a number of other amendments, it is, first, because the Government appreciate and attach a great deal of importance to the problem, and it is, secondly, to show the Committee that a great deal of time and effort has already been spent on the problem. In the result we think that we have at least for the moment got it about right and it is precisely because we want the situation to be flexible that, as the noble Lord has already pointed out, the safeguard in Clause 4(7) can be triggered if the situation warrants it.
In regard to the pre-emption clauses, it would be a form of restriction which would differentiate the council house purchaser from other owner-occupiers, and would mean that where he sold his house within five years he would be subject to the dual obligation to repay a proportion of the discount and to offer the house back to his former landlord at the district valuer's estimate of market value. That would place him in a different and disadvantaged position as regards other purchasers and might very well discourage building societies from lending on houses subject to such restrictions. Consequently there would be a reduction in the benefit to public expenditure from such sales as well as the inherent unfairness of preemption conditions to the purchasing tenant.
He must accept an estimate of market value which, with the best will in the world on the part of the district valuer, is bound to be an average of actual market values

1815
at best, and may, at worst, be an underestimate because there may well be insufficient evidence of sales of former council houses of a particular type in a particular area for the district valuer to have an absolutely reliable basis for judging the true market value. It is mainly for those reasons that we are opposed in principle to the extensive use of pre-emption conditions.
There is another consideration. We must ask ourselves how pre-emption conditions would be used. I do not think that anyone would argue that buying houses at market value is likely to be the most economical way of making provision for housing needs—and I stress "at market value" If it were the most economical way, there is no obstacle to local authorities doing so at the moment instead of building houses, and there is little indication from their current practice that they consider it wise. However, any derogation of the principle would give local authorities who do not wish to go along with this scheme an excuse not to sell, however imprudent it might be. In fact, there are no doubt some Labour controlled authorities which have taken an irrational view of council house sales, and they would no doubt go to any lengths—however imprudent it may be—to claw back the rights. So, we do not think that it is right to leave the door open to that sort of doctrinaire action.
There is really no real difference between rural areas and urban areas when it comes to the argument that selling council houses harms the interests of those wishing to rent. I have said it before and I make no apology for saying it again: in rural areas more than others, tenants and their families are likely to stay put in their houses for a long time, whether they rent or buy. So not selling houses would not make them available for other people to rent. Meeting housing needs whether in rural or urban areas is a quite separate matter. From what I have said it will be seen to be the Government's contention that it is wrong to say that, by fettering the right of tenants to buy their houses in rural areas, in some way the housing stock in a rural area will either he improved or even maintained.
As the noble Lord has said, the reason the amendment—which he has now
1816
espoused—was tabled to the Housing Bill concerned the problem of second homes. We looked with particular care at anxieties which were expressed that council houses would be resold as second homes. I accept that in some cases, at any rate, these anxieties are genuine. But on the evidence so far available to me I have not concluded—in fact, I cannot conclude—that the scale of this problem is such as to justify special provisions. An independent report specifically dealing with second homes in Scotland, prepared three years ago, found that in the four years prior to the report the total number of second homes in Scotland had remained static and in the great majority of cases where existing houses had been bought as second homes they were for one reason or another unsuitable for regular occupation at the time when they were bought. Against that background the idea that former council houses will be bought as second homes on any significant scale does not appear very probable. I do not pretend that there will never be a case anywhere in Scotland where a former council house is resold as a second home. But hard cases make bad law, and we are reluctant to put automatic restrictions on large numbers of tenants who buy their houses in rural areas for the sake of the occasional case.
This matter was debated extensively in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has reminded us. I raise this matter not in any way to claim that your Lordships should not give the matter anxious consideration. However, I do point out that the Government have already listened to views expressed both by the Opposition and more especially the views of their supporters who represent the majority of rural areas in Scotland. At the end of the day the Government accepted a safeguard proposed by a Member representing a large rural constituency, and that is now embodied in Clause 4(7), which will ensure that any authority which is faced with a second homes problem stemming from the sale of council houses is able to deal with the situation. So the reason why this Bill and the Housing Bill—which relates to England and Wales—differ quite sharply in their treatment of these restrictions is that the conditions are different. There are districts in England and Wales where the growth of second homes is a signi-

1817
ficant and widespread problem, but the evidence as regards Scotland suggests that that is not the case with us.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raised the matter of the designation of a rural area. He will see from the subsection that it is dealt with quite neatly in an amendment which was put into the Bill in the other place. Therefore, I have come full circle to what I said at the beginning. If this amendment were accepted we would have two differing but parallel measures on the statute book. One has been specially designed and adapted for Scottish consideration and for dealing with a Scottish problem should it arise; the other has been drafted in England and is designed to help the English out of a problem which they know already exists. I know which I would choose and therefore, in the circumstances, if it comes to the point, I should ask the Committee to reject the noble Lord's amendment.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: I am a little unhappy at the noble Earl's reply to the suggestion made in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. He seemed to be arguing in some respect that this has been greatly discussed in another place, and therefore there is nothing for us to do about it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I specifically said absolutely the opposite. I said that this had been debated extensively in another place. I specifically said that this in no way stops your Lordships from giving the whole matter anxious consideration, but that it did show that a great deal of time and thought had already been devoted to the problem.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Perhaps I may intervene on this point. It is the fact that during the Committee stage the discussion on rural housing lasted half an hour.
The Earl of PERTH: All the same, despite what the noble Earl has said, it is important that we are free to consider these matters, and not that because some discussion has taken place in another place, therefore we must be guided by it.
One of the main arguments used concerned the problem of the right of preemption. As I understand it, if there
1818
were to be such a right of pre-emption, at that moment the district valuer who is assessing the value of the house—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will tell me that I am wrong on this—will perhaps set a different initial price for the purchase. If that is the case—and I should have thought that it would be—such a right of pre-emption would not be very onerous for the person who bought, because he would buy the house on more favourable terms than he would otherwise have done.
The other matter that has occurred to me is this. The noble Earl said that it would perhaps be very difficult for the district valuer to set a price in the event of a resale because he may not know about the area and there may not be much to go on. But as I understand it, he has already had to do this task once in the original sale to the original person involved. If he has been able to do it once and has had the guidance of that transaction, surely at a later date the task would not be all that difficult. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to think very seriously about the merit of this amendment.
He has said that the difficulty will be that it will, in a sense, be in conflict with a subsection which has already been passed in Clause 4. That may be so. If it is the case, it would be sufficient if at this stage the noble Earl were to say that he would consider this clause very seriously so that at the Report stage we would be in a position—if he gave us an indication that he would accept such an amendment —to amend the existing clause which is already in conflict with it.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I think that the Committee will be very impressed by the amount of time that the Government, Ministers and their advisers have spent with wet towels round their heads considering practically every point that has been raised in opposition to the Bill. However, because the Government have spent a great deal of time does not mean that they have necessarily arrived at the right answer. We are entitled to query it and to raise it again and, indeed, to do our own wet towel-thinking about these matters.
But the fact is that this amendment has our support. It might well not have had our support if the Government had not

1819
listened previously to our plea that there should be some cases where the local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, should know best. I said yesterday, and I repeat, that every one of us knows of cases where the selling off of two or three houses to a non-useful person in a rural area would deprive that area of essential people, such as rabbit trappers, which is a very essential occupation. If such people cannot get a house because it has been sold as a holiday home, it means that the whole district suffers.
I do not know why the noble Earl should say that the holiday home problem will not arise in Scotland. I thought that with a Conservative Government we would have reached a stage of prosperity equal to that in England and Wales, where more people would have second homes in Scotland. The problem is growing. I think that the noble Earl said that that report was produced four years ago. Certainly there is a demand in our area, and in other areas which I know, for houses as holiday homes. I think that this is a reasonable solution to a very real problem, failing any local latitude being given to the local authorities.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I should like to make the point to my noble friend Lord Mansfield that I am not against the sale of council houses in Scotland to the right individuals. I understand that my noble friend quoted figures about the demand for holiday homes which were four years old. I cannot speak for the rest of Scotland, but my experience in the Western Highlands and in the particular part of Scotland in which I am interested is that the tourist demand for holiday homes has grown exceedingly in the last four years. In the area with which I am conversant we do not have a great number of council houses, but the local authorities are building more, and I am rather frightened that quite a number of them might end up as holiday homes.
4.57 p.m.
Lord GALPERN: One of the points which I wanted to raise earlier in reply to the noble Earl's difficulties has already been made by the noble Earl who has spoken from the Cross-Benches. It seemed to
1820
me that he was really in sympathy with this new clause. The only problem which confronts him is whether or not there is a remedy. As has already been pointed out, all he has to do is to amend or delete Clause 4, which seems to knock the whole Bill out of joint. Surely no great problem is presented to the Committee or to the Minister if he feels that that is the only reason—and it seems to me that it is one of the main reasons—why he is objecting to it.
If that is not the only reason, why is he objecting to this new clause? Is it because it may be difficult for the sitting owner to find a ready buyer for his home in a rural area who qualifies under the conditions contained in the new clause? I doubt very much whether that will ever come to pass. There must be many people who travel well outside a rural area, from the town or city, to work in that area. Therefore, in my opinion there will be any number of applicants who would be ready to buy any house that might be offered for sale in a rural area and the applicant or potential buyer would readily qualify for it. On the other hand, if there was a possibility that that would create great difficulties for the sitting owner selling his house, possibly the Minister might have some real, solid ground for objecting to the inclusion of this particular clause. However, the Government did not think so in the English Bill.
I think that this is an even stronger case for the whole business of selling houses in rural areas to be excluded from the Bill; because, even though the Minister says that there might not be a major problem, it is a major problem because we admit that the number of houses involved throughout the whole of Scotland is minimal. Nevertheless, a situation may arise when someone has been travelling, summer and winter, from an area six or 10 miles away, and a house may become available. Surely he should be given some kind of preferential treatment and consideration when such a house is being sold in the area to which he has been travelling and in which he has been working for so many years. I hope that the Minister will address his thoughts between now and Report stage to how he can deal with the one clause that is causing him some considerable trouble, namely, Clause 4.
5 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have never had such a lack of confidence in my own powers of advocacy as I have over this. It would be so easy for me to say to the Committee, "Yes, of course I will go away and think about it", but I hope that I can persuade at least the majority of your Lordships that there really is not any need to do so because all the safeguards that noble Lords want are already written in.
May I first take the Committee back to Clause 4? The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, takes me to task in effect for not adopting this amendment which he says gives a much better and more defined role to the local authorities. If we just examine these subsections together perhaps I can convince the noble Lord that in fact the local authorities have a role to play. Clause 4(6) provides that pre-emption conditions may be imposed on houses in an area
"designated a rural area by the islands or district council within whose area it is situated",
provided that the Secretary of State makes an order by statutory instrument confirming the designation.
There we have the power to the local authority which says to itself, "There is a danger cropping up here,"in effect to go to the Secretary of State and say, "Will you make an order under subsection (6) which will trigger off the next subsection, subsection (7)?"It seems to me that that is a reasonably satisfactory way of the locals giving vent to their, as they will think, justifiable grievances or anxieties, and the Secretary of State doing something about it.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I am grateful for the explanation. The reason that I might have mentioned that I did not think this was sufficient is that it stipulates that the order may be made provided that within the said rural area more than one-third of the number of dwelling-houses have been sold.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord is so quick to the point. He has gone rushing on to the next subsection. I have not got there yet. I am just coming to it. Subsection (7) limits the Secretary of State's power to make an order under subsection (6), confirming
1822
the designation of a rural area by providing that it shall not be exercised unless a third of the houses which the landlord owned in that area at the date of the commencement have been sold. In other words, a third of the stock has gone. Somebody has to make a judgment about this, and I suggest to the Committee that a third is about right; about right to say, "We are now anxious".
The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have subsequently been resold and are not being used as the only, or principal, home. This is where the second home point comes in that my noble friend was talking about. You get, therefore, what I should like to call a triple safeguard. The locals are worried; the conditions are satisfied; the third of the stock has gone not to principal homes but to second homes (or "unprincipled" homes, if I may so call them), and then you get the preemption clause coming in.
It is fair to say that that preemption clause is to an extent derogated by subsection (8), but I do not think that that really concerns us for this debate. If the second homes menace, if I may so call it, gets worse, here is the protection written into the Bill. I do not dispute—and my noble friend Lord Massereene produced this point—that there may well be a demand for second homes in certain areas of Scotland. There is already. The point I wish to make is that people who want second homes do not normally want the fully operational council house type of homes, do they? What they like to do is to buy a run down cottage and do it up and make it into what could be called a "bijou abode", and not very many council houses quite fit into that category. One has to be aware of the dangers, but what I am trying to say is that I hope the Committee will agree that the Government have taken them into account.
If one then finally takes into account that the houses will be sold in the first place only to sitting tenants—and I must repeat that—the people who will be the sitting tenants, particularly in the rural areas, are unlikely to move from their homes for a great many years. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and I, living at each end of the raspberry belt as we do, know that people do not move much.

1823
Therefore, I repeat, as I have done so often, that I do not think that the housing stock in the normal course of events is going to be adversely affected by the provisions in this Bill.
I said at the beginning that my powers of advocacy today seem to be sadly lacking. I have at least tried to get over to your Lordships that the Government really think that we have gone a long way towards the road of providing an adequate and proper safeguard in Clause 4(7), and that if this amendment, or something like it, were agreed to, it could not make the positon better and it most assuredly would make it worse.
Viscount THURSO: It seems to me that Clause 4(7) is shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. It says:
"within the said rural area more than one-third of the number of dwelling-houses of which the council concerned is the landlord at the date of commencement of this part of this Act have been sold".
If more than one-third out of three houses have been sold, that means that two have gone, so there is only one left.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: That is one of the troubles about this matter. There has not been a proper appreciation of the pattern of local authority housing in the rural areas. I do not want to repeat what I have already said. We all know for ourselves that there may be three or four houses, perhaps five or six, some of them built by a local authority and entirely specified. I remember the time when we built them for farm workers—not just for people who worked in the rural areas, but who were actually farm workers. When the position was run down in respect of farm workers it was widened for other people working in the area, with the say-so of the Secretary of State. There always has been this concern.
The noble Earl mentioned his powers of advocacy. Well, it may be because he is an English lawyer and not a Scots lawyer that he is not entirely convincing to us Scots. We have to set his judgment against the judgment of Argyll, the councils in the Western Isles, the councillors in Tweeddale, in the Borders, all round the country who are all concerned about this.
Argyll, in their critique of the Bill, never even mentioned second homes or holiday homes. They said:
"In rural areas and islands where there is in a locality a small number of houses, then either all or a percentage of these should remain in council ownership because of the danger of depopulation, cost of replacement, infrastructure for industry, commerce, and other services necessary to support a community in such an area".
If we carry on with this indiscriminately and deny the option to the local authorities, then it means that we shall be encouraging depopulation.
The noble Earl says, "But we have got Clause 4." We have another stage of the Bill coming and we shall get rid of Clause 4 if he wants us to. But to my mind there is no real conflict because Clause 4 only applies a safeguard in respect of holiday homes. In any event, "possibly" is not much of a safeguard. I remind the Minister that the proposed new clause begins "Notwithstanding section 4 of this Act", so he is on a very bad wicket. The noble Earl has given all sorts of reasons why we should not make this change, but he has not convinced me, and I am sure many others remain unconvinced. This is not a rabid socialist suggestion; the clause was inserted in the English Bill to suit English rural areas, and the protection in Scotland should be that at least.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 106.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Beswick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Birk, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Annan, L.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Byers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Blyton, L.

Caradon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Balogh, L.

Bowden, L.

Collison, L.

Barrington, V.

Brockway, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Seear, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leonard, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Feversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strauss, L.

Galpern, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Meston, L.

Thurso, V.

Grey, E.

Milford, L.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

Northfield, L.

Walston, L.

Henderson, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Perth, E.

Wigg, L.

Jacques, L.

Phillips, B.

Wigoder, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Raglan, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Faithfull, B.

Montgomery of Alemein, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Norfolk, D.

Baker, L.

Glendevon, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Godber of Willington, L.

Orkney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Gormanston, V.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Ridley, V.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rochdale, V.

Bessborough, E.

Romney, E.

Birdwood, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Henley, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Bradford, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sandford, L.

Brentford, V.

Hillingdon, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Holderness, L.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ilchester, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inchyra, L.

Stamp, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De Freyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Trenchard,V.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Vaizey, L.

Donegall, M.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Margadale, L.

Wemyss, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 7 [Duties of landlords]:
5.19 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and I hope to obtain some information from the Government. This clause lays down the duties of the landlord, a very important clause indeed, some may say the most important in the Bill. It is the clause which, to my mind, may lead to a certain measure of trouble with local authorities who do not like the Bill and

1827
have told the Government so and whose regrets about it have just been shrugged aside by the Government. Subsection (4) says:
"Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of the provisions of any other enactment relating to the enforcement of a statutory duty whether under that enactment or otherwise".
To me the clause is one of some complexity because it brings in the Lands Tribunal; there is two months for this, and two months for that. Subsection (3) states that the Lands Tribunal shall:
"complete the procedure provided for in section 2 of this Act; and anything done under this subsection shall have effect as if it had been duly done by the landlord under the relevant provision of the said section 2".
The Lands Tribunal comes in and takes over the role of the local authority.
I should like to go into this matter in very considerable detail because it is so important. There is another aspect: the sheriff comes into it as well because of the question of the loan. The sale cannot be completed until the question of the loan is settled. That comes under not subsection (2) but some other subsection or clause. So I want to know whether anyone has given any thought to the time that will be involved in this matter. I should like to know whether it is the Lands Tribunal that goes to the sheriff. There is as much complexity and confusion as that in this clause and Bill.
I turn now to what eventually is the really important point. If the landlord is unwilling to sell or to make any move at all, the tussle is between the landlord and an individual, a tenant. But subsection (4) goes beyond that; it is the Government against the local authority. The simple question is: what are the other enactments that the Government had in mind in regard to subsection (4), relating to the enforcement of a statutory duty upon a local authority? I beg to move.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Clause 1(1) of the Bill confers the right to buy on tenants in public sector housing. I say that very generally; I am trying merely to marry up some of the clauses so as to make the position clear. Clause 7 places duties on the landlords to take steps to sell houses to which the right to buy
1828
applies, as a corollary of the conferment of the right to buy. This clause also provides for the Lands Tribunal to complete the procedure set out in Clause 2 by acting in the landlord's stead where the landlord has failed to comply with any obligation imposed by Clause 2.
That is the setting of the clause. In such a case in legislation dealing with the enforcement of statutory duties it is standard practice to include a saving provision, such as subsection (4). The purpose of such a provision is to leave scope for a choice as to the means of enforcing a statutory duty which is most appropriate to a particular case. In relation to the Bill we have made it clear that the tenant's rights of access to the Lands Tribunal is intended for use where there is a genuine dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
Unfortunately, the Labour Party in Scotland has made no secret of its intention to attempt to overload the Lands Tribunal by deliberate breach of the law on a large scale as a means of frustrating the Bill when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord has said that this amendment is a probing amendment, but if it were agreed to it would appear to be an attempt to assist that deliberate flouting of the law. That is what the effect would be. It is wholly irresponsible to argue that we should seek to restrict the means available to deal with authorities which deliberately disregard their statutory duties. The Government have made it clear, and will continue to make it clear, that they do not intend to stand by and allow any local authority to deny its tenants the rights which Parliament decides that they should have. Subsection (4) is designed no more and no less to remove any ambiguity or dubiety which may exist.
The noble Lord asked me what kind of power the Government have in mind, and I shall quote him one example. Part of the reason for subsection (4) is to remove any doubt that if an authority is failing to carry out the duties placed on it by this Part of the Bill, the Secretary of State may, for instance, take action under Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, with the object of forcing the authority to do so. I very much hope that none of that will be necessary, but unfortunately prudence dictates that the Bill should be as well and as cogently

1829
drafted as possible to take account of any flouting of the law that local authorities may see fit to indulge in.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble Earl has at times an infelicitous way of expressing himself, and that is about the happiest thing that I can say, bearing in mind that he seemed to impute that in regard to this amendment I was somehow or other part of a conspiracy by the Labour Party. The noble Earl is a lawyer. Even though he is an English lawyer, he will know that even if these words were not there and if, let us suppose, I carried out my threat and persuaded everyone to join me, it would not have mattered tuppence because the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene under the enactments would remain.
It might be that I was trying to help the noble Earl; and I think it right that people who are administering the law and who are thinking about courses that I would not necessarily advise them to take, should know what is in front of them. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not taken in that spirit what I have had to say, and has not spelled out quite clearly what it is in the Government's power to do. I asked the noble Earl, what are the other enactments? —and all he mentioned was Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. If he looks through his brief again, he might find one or two more examples which might be even more helpful to us and to the Committee.
The noble Earl said that the Lands Tribunal comes in only where there is a disagreement between the landlord and tenant. With all due respect, that is not true. Much more relevant is the situation in which the landlord timorously fails to issue either an offer to sell or a notice of refusal; in other words, does nothing. The question of the loan arises. A local authority can say, "Yes, we will give you the right to buy". But then the tenant has the power to go to the local authority and say, "I demand a loan". The sale is not going to take place without that loan—and that is nothing to do with Section 2 of the Act. Not only that, but in sequence of procedure the granting of a loan follows the offer to sell, which as soon as may be becomes a binding contract. But the sale cannot take place unless there is the loan. What is the position about that, if the local authority does not act
1830
there? Remember, it says that the Lands Tribunal may issue a notice and undertake such other steps as may be required to complete the transaction. Does that mean that the Lands Tribunal then goes to the sheriff and says to the sheriff, "The tenant has not been offered a loan, please act"?
Further, how long is all this going to take, from the time of the neglect of the local authority in the first instance? There is the question of one month and then, in relation to the loan, I think there are another two months, and then there is the period in relation to the sheriff. How long is all this going to take? All this is important from the point of view of implementing the provisions under subsection (4). I do not know whether any thought has been given to this question of procedure; as to how you proceed with the loan part after a local authority has been in default, and the extent to which the Lands Tribunal has got to go and complete the procedure. Because after that part of the procedure it may well be that they all go forward in respect of the loan as well. But what is the position thereafter in respect of the loan?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I will respond briefly. It is plain that the point of this clause is to place the Lands Tribunal in the shoes of the local authority if it is behaving awkwardly in the carrying out of its duties under Clause 2.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Subsection (2).
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I do not think I can elaborate on that any further. If there are any disputes about loans, which is a different matter, they will fall to be settled in the sheriff court. If time delays occur during litigation, normal rules applying to Lands Tribunals will mean that the Lands Tribunal would, as it were, suspend its operations pending the settlement of the case in court. So the two dovetail in quite well together. I think, if I may say so, that if the noble Lord goes back and reads this clause in conjunction with Clause 2, it becomes plain.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Clause 2 has nothing to do with loans, and the reference here is to the procedure provided in Section 2 of the Act. He can carry

1831
on with that, and he can act as the landlord in respect of the tenant, which means he has a valid claim to purchase the house. But it is another clause altogether which deals with the question of loans; and, as the noble Earl knows, the local authority, under a series of orders that are going to be provided to him or imposed on him—I think the word "imposed" is there—by the Secretary of State, must eventually offer a loan to the tenant who has now got the right to purchase. But there is a possibility there of the refusal of a loan, and there the tenant can take it to the sheriff. This procedure cannot take place until after he has got the right to purchase, and I want to know exactly what, in respect of that, the Government propose to do and how the tenant is involved—because it is not the Lands Tribunal which settles that; it is the sheriff. I think I will withdraw the amendment, and we will return to this at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Secure tenancies]:
5.35 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 69:
Page 16, line 16, after ("(a)") insert ("a regional,")
Page 16, line 29, leave out ("and")
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("; and
(h) a police authority in Scotland")
line 32, at end insert—
("; and
(h) the Forestry Commission")
line 32, at end insert—
("; and
(h) the Secretary of State where the house is occupied for the purposes of the Scottish Prison Service or a State Hospital").
The noble Lord said: I think we can make some progress if I move Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 together. They all deal virtually with the same thing. Clause 10 gives security of tenure to particular people—that is, provided it is a dwelling-house which is let as a separate dwelling, that the tenant is an individual and that the landlord is one of the bodies
1832
listed. Then there is a list of bodies, and I hope to add to them, first, a regional authority. They have houses which have tenants in them. Why not give them security of tenure? This is a tenants' rights Bill; let us get in as many tenants as possible, and give them the right to security of tenure. Amendment No. 66 is purely drafting, to cope with the further amendments. Then, a police authority. They have housing, and they have tenants in them. Why not give the persons in those houses security of tenure? The same thing applies in the case of the Forestry Commission, and in the case of people in houses owned by the Scottish Prison Service.
These are very modest amendments, and I hope that the noble Earl does not jump to conclusions. I could have gone a lot further than this. I could have amended the next subsection, but the next subsection says that it does not apply if the person is there on an occupational basis. In other words, what I am dealing with here is those people who have not got to be in their houses because of the nature of their occupation, for the better and more efficient carrying out of their employment. We know that the Scottish Prison Service has houses which are surplus to requirements. It may well be the same thing applies in relation to the police authority. I know some police houses which are in housing schemes and where the policeman is not employed within that area. He is probably in a panda car at the other end of the town.
I could have been very much worse in my amendments if I had gone further, as many people would have liked me to go, and had limited it and reduced the number of tied houses in Scotland—because that is what it would have done. That would be very desirable; but I know the Government I am opposed to, and I try to do reasonable things, moderate things, with them. Why can they not accept this amendment? The noble Earl said he had a surprise for me—we will reach it by Christmas, I expect—and that he is going to accept one of my amendments. There is a bit of a tussle going on with him, as to whether or not it is one that I am going to withdraw, so denying him the generosity of spirit which is innately his. But that is the purpose of these amendments, and there is no reason why the Government should not accept

1833
them. The world would not dissolve if they accepted them; because these provisions come into force only if the houses are surplus to requirements and the tenants are not really tied to the accommodation. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: These amendments all bear upon the authorities whose tenants would, if the amendments were accepted, become secure tenants and who, therefore, would possess particular rights, such as the right to buy, protection against summary eviction and the right to succession for members of their families resident in the house. It will perhaps help to explain that the list of bodies presently included in subsection (2) of Clause 10 of the Bill is composed entirely of public landlords for which the provision of housing is the primary function—and I should emphasise that phrase. That is the criterion for inclusion of any body in this list.
The bodies which the noble Lord seeks to include in the list do not come into this category. They are not housing authorities. Their statutory duties are not to provide housing for general purposes, but to carry out other functions. The housing they provide is purely ancillary to these other functions, and it is, generally speaking, let only to their staff who are engaged in carrying out these functions. To bind such bodies either to sell their houses or to provide long-term accommodation for their staff, and even in some cases for their adult children after the death of the original staff member, would be sure to inhibit these bodies in the services they were set up to provide for the community. If one realises that the line has to be drawn somewhere, I hope the noble Lord will agree that this is a good and logical place to draw it. In those circumstances, I would invite him to withdraw the amendments.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I shall withdraw the amendments, but I thought that I might have got a few kind words from the noble Earl repeating something said elsewhere: that the Government are examining all these areas. They have said this about the present service relating to the houses that are surplus to requirement. Some of them are empty. Surely, in a case like that, they would not be taking very much of a chance; but if it
1834
helps to concentrate the mind of the Government in respect of houses that are surplus to capacity and are not needed for the original purposes for which they were provided—and they were not always provided by the actual authority; it was usually the local authority who made them available to them—and to concentrate their minds on seeing how they can best deal with this and whether or not they could return them to the local authority, I should be better satisfied. It was an unsatisfactory answer but we are used to this now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 7L:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
"Consultation with secure tenants
( . It shall be the duty of the landlord to prepare a scheme for regular consultation with secure tenants on such matters of housing management as may affect them. Such a proposed scheme shall be submitted to the Secretary of State not later than 12 months after the commencement of Part III of this Act, and its implementation shall be subject to the Secretary of State's approval.")
The noble Lord said: This again is a very respectable amendment. It is seeking to place a responsibility on the landlord (which is the local authority) to do something which is already being done by the statutory authorities in England. It is to prepare a scheme for regular consultation with secure tenants on such matters of housing management as may affect them. I thought that there was a general consensus that what we wanted was a closer relationship between the local authority and those who were their tenants in housing schemes. They may be large schemes; they may be small ones; and the large ones could be divided into separate ones. There are then these community associations who are striving for the betterment of the areas and the houses in which they live. Surely it would be reasonable for the local authorities to take the initiative and establish direct consultations, exchanges of view, on the many topics that they have in common. I do not know why so far they have turned against this.
The noble Earl can make his name, exercise his power and say that this is a good thing. It will forever be known as the "Mansfield clause". Nobody will ever forget about it. Here is his chance! Maybe this is one that he is going to accept; but I can assure him that it is so sensible that you have only to read it to be convinced. Do not let them tell him that the local authorities do not want it. Some will not want it; but it is the kind of thing that obviously should be done—consultation between the tenants and the landlords. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord has invited me to accept the amendment and, as he puts it, to make my name. I must tell him that if I did any such thing I should without doubt lose it—certainly, among my colleagues. I will, however, re-state our reasons for resisting the inclusion of this English provision into our Scottish Bill. The effect of the amendment is to oblige landlords to prepare a scheme for consultation with tenants on matters of housing management which affect them. The noble Lord has borrowed this provision from the English Housing Bill, but he has apparently overlooked the fact that elsewhere in that Bill there is a definition of "a matter of housing management". Without such a statutory definition it would be extremely difficult to establish criteria governing the matters which should be placed before tenants and those matters such as rents which perhaps should not. So before this should become the "Ross amendment", perhaps further thought should be given by him to the criteria. However, that is not our major objection to this provision. That objection rests on the absence of evidence of unfulfilled demand for consultation about general management decisions from the majority of tenants in Scotland.
Some pressure groups—such as Shelter and the Scottish Tenants' Organisation—have suggested that there is a strong demand. But a study in 1978 carried out by the Scottish Consumer Council showed that only 13 per cent. of tenants belonged to tenants' associations. This evidence of indifference is reinforced by the results of a more recent survey of tenants' associations themselves, also carried out
1836
by the Scottish Consumer Council. They set out to contact all tenants' associations in Scotland, so far as they could be located. Out of a survey of about 600, less than half (47 per cent.) were sufficiently interested in any level of consultation (from direct involvement in decisions to the basic notification of them) to respond to a question on the subject in the questionnaire. Not surprisingly, 95 per cent. of those who did respond to that question were in favour of consultation on some level, and 77 per cent. favoured a level of consultation at or above that represented by this amendment. Those are the figures which tend to be emphasized by the supporters of consultation. But noble Lords will appreciate that what these figures really mean is that, in total terms only just over a third (36 per cent.) of tenants involved in tenants' associations were in favour of this sort of consultation; and they are not necessarily representative of the great mass of tenants (87 per cent.) who do not even bother to belong to a tenants' association. Moreover, the Consumer Council survey showed that at least three-quarters of those who favoured consultation already enjoyed arrangements where the landlord was normally represented at their meetings. This means that something less than 10 per cent. of those contacted—and, remember, that they themselves constituted only some 13 per cent. of tenants, the ones most interested in such matters—favoured consultation and did not already have it. The real demand for improved methods of consultation is therefore very small indeed.
That is the position in Scotland, and it is very different from the situation in England where tenants' associations are much stronger and the demand for consultation more highly developed. That is why we do not propose to introduce in Scotland at the present time formal arrangements for which there is little demand but which would necessarily place heavy burdens on local authorities in terms of manpower and other resources. The question of resources is very important. COSLA have stressed that a statutory obligation to consult tenants would have very significant manpower consequences and it must be remembered that this Bill contains provisions on the right to a written lease and to challenge unreasonable tenancy conditions which are not in the Housing Bill for England and

1837
which will place considerable demands on local authorities' manpower. It is all too easy, in comparing the two Bills, to fail to look at the whole picture. We have directed local authority manpower resources towards the use which we believe will be of greater value to Scottish tenants and, at a time of limited resources, such choices must be made.
Having said all that, I wish to emphasise that we support the growth of consultation with tenants where demand does exist. That is why we have offered a three year grant of £45,000 to the Scottish Council for Social Service to enable them to establish an information and advisory service to landlords and tenants aimed at promoting tenant consultation and housing co-operatives. That grant is unlike anything that has been done in England, and is concrete evidence of our genuine commitment to foster consultation in Scotland. We hope that the encouragement given in this way will result in greater demand, and that where this happens local authorities and tenants will co-operate in creating an effective consultative machinery by a process of natural development out of bodies which already exist, such as the community councils.
I would emphasise that community councils are a tier of Government which the English do not have and I suggest that they are in a very good place to act on behalf of the local citizenry in matters such as housing. Many of these community councils are already active in the housing field throughout Scotland, and possess the double merit of being inexpensive in terms of resources and by now are familiar to the general public. I would urge noble Lords to look positively upon the Government's approach, and to give it their support. I hope that I have shown that the differences which exist as between Scotland and England are much more profound than they may appear at first blush, and the arrangements which have been made are really the best and most logical in the circumstances of Scotland.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble Earl says that we cannot do this because of lack of demand for it. Might I tell him that if that is his criterion we should not have this Bill, for there is no demand for it in Scotland. I will not rub salt into the wounds, quoting manifestoes, election
1838
results and municipal election results. However, if he is interested in opinion polls, he will have noticed that, low as they were, the Tory support has gone down by yet a few more points in this past week. This debate will be fully reported word for word, in all the Scottish papers, and it may well be that the stock of the Tory party will rise! I have my doubts.
It is easy to suggest lack of demand, and it is easy to suggest that some support has fallen away from the tenants' associations. If they cannot get the consultation that they need and want—and that is a fact in some cases—of course support will diminish. But the noble Earl says that he is all in favour of consultation. Let me tell him that many local authorities have no desire to have any such consultation. They do not want to be bothered. That is why we have the clash far too often between people who are tenants in housing schemes and local authorities who adopt a fairly arrogant attitude in some places and on some occasions.
I think that it is rather a pity that the noble Earl has done this. But to plead the manpower aspects of it and to point out that under this Bill we are giving them rights to leases with all the work that that is going to cost the local authority! May 1, without apology, return to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, page 5—and I hope I have the right one, I do not think this one matters a lot—where it says that some local authorities and new town corporations under this Bill may need to make a small addition to their staff, and for the rest the manpower implications of the other provisions are minimal.
I suggest that the manpower implications of this clause are even more minimal. It was quite wrong to put that one forward as one of the reasons. The noble Earl talked about demand and about the number of people who did not demand it. Did he appreciate what we were talking about in the last amendment? Some 38 per cent, of the houses in Scotland are in the rural areas. It is not possible in that case to get the same kind of tenants' association as in the cities. But the problems are in the cities. It is there that we need consultation. This is one way to get it. I am afraid that this is one of the amendments that I cannot see my way to withdrawing.
Lord FERRIER: The noble Lord said this debate would be in all the Scottish papers. That reminds me of something that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, once said. He said: "These proceedings are as likely to be reported in tomorrow morning's Pravda as they are to be in the Scotsman"!
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amend-ment (No. 70) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 100.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Grey, E.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Byers, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Caradon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thurso, V.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

David, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Melchett, L.

Whaddon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Galpern, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Allerton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Baker, L.

Glendevon, L.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Gormanston, V.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hacking, L.

Perth, E.

Bourne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Redesdale, L.

Bradford,E.

Henley, L.

Ridley, V.

Brentford, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Butler of Saffron Walden, L.

Hood, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cockfield, L.

Ironside, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Craigmyle, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard,V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaizey, L.

Donegall, M.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Wemyss and March, E.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Schedule 1 [Tenancies which are not secure tenancies]:
6.5 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 57, line 4, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: I do not want to alarm the noble Lord; this is purely a probing amendment. For my sins, a long time ago I was a member of the Guthrie Committee on long leases in Scotland. We thought we had got rid of them once and for all when the incoming Conservative Government produced a Bill to allow the people with those long leases, no matter what term they had to go, to convert them into feus. One of the recommendations we made was that there should be no more long leases in Scotland. What I want to know is how it comes that we have a provision saying that a tenancy shall not be a secure tenancy if it is for a period exceeding 20 years. I thought we had got away from this practice in Scotland, and I just wanted to make that point here and to ask the Government what information they can give me about the existence of long leases in Scotland.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As the noble Lord has correctly stated, paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 excludes tenancies under long leases from being secure tenancies. His amendment, which he has admitted is probing, would exclude that. Unlike England, in Scotland long leases, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, in effect have suffered disapproval for many years, and since the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974 the creation of new long leases for residential property has actually been illegal in Scotland. The reason for excluding that form of tenant from security under this Bill is that it is considered more a form of ownership than of tenancy. A tenant on a long lease, of 20 years or more, has rights of virtual ownership over the property for that term. He does not need additional rights of the type accorded to secure tenancies, because he already has them.
As I have pointed out, no new long leases have been created since 1974. It is likely that if any survive from before then they are minuscule in number. I cannot give the noble Lord figures, because
1842
obviously no Government or Government department would know such detail. The provision excluding them from secure tenancy is contained in the Bill simply as a precaution, for the reasons I have outlined. I should add that the previous Government's consultation paper on security of tenure proposed a similar exclusion and that such an exclusion appeared in the Bill which they published relating to England and Wales. The noble Lord may well agree, therefore, that this provision has good parentage.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It may well be in relation to England and Wales; I am perfectly sure it is. The position is entirely different. Many people thought there was no leasehold at all in Scotland. When we discovered a situation arising at one time the committee was set up under Lord Guthrie and we found that there were a considerable number of long leases in Scotland. There were many around the Ayrshire area. We discovered that there was an element of perpetuity about at least two or three of them. We came across the actual charters that were granted by the Earls of Eglington, I think it was, for a period of 9,999 years. We discovered, too, that one of the reasons why they did not grant feus, and they were so registered, was that there was a certain measure of doubt as to whether they had any right to the land, because it was church land at one time. I was fascinated by the appearance here again of long leases. I am very glad to know that they are a bit of a hangover and that there are relatively few of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Succession to secure tenancy]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 18, line 25, leave out from ("below" to end of line 27.
Page 19, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 73 goes with Amendment No. 74 and I really want to have my mind clear as to what is meant by this succession

1843
as to secure tenancies. I hope I am not right in my reading of the Bill where a secure tenancy passes by operation of law to a qualified person unless the qualified person declines or the tenancy is terminated by operation of subsection (5).
I notice the Government have already got another amendment in to subsection (5) to remove the words,
"… created on the death of a tenant".
I was envisaging a family of husband and wife, probably both pensioners, and a single person at home looking after them—this happens a lot in Scottish families—and the tenancy passes first from the husband to the wife. Then does it pass a second time? I was troubled by
"a secure tenancy which is passed under subsection (1) above to a qualified person shall not, on the death of a tenant (or one of joint tenants) so pass on a second occasion,…".
I am sure that many people in Scotland would be very concerned indeed if they found that somebody who had gone home to look after aged parents on the death of both parents, one after another, would be left without virtually any security of tenure. Could I be reassured on that point? I beg to move these amendments.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 are proposed together. I have to point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 75.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Subsection (5) did not read wholly felicitously. If one takes Amendment No. 75 and reads it with that, to my brain at any rate, it is much more comprehensible. The effect of the clause is that the right to succession to a secure tenancy at present extends to only one succession except where there are joint tenants, but these amendments would in effect provide for an unlimited right of succession as long as any joint tenant, surviving spouse or member of the tenant's family remains living in the house. The Bill, as it stands, provides a right of succession only once, as I have said, and not for an unlimited number of times except in the case of joint tenants, where the right to
1844
occupy the house continues for as long as any of the joint tenants who originally succeeded to the joint tenancy are still living there.
The important point to bear in mind is that the clause provides only for a statutory minimum. There is nothing to stop a local authority bestowing the tenancy on the next member of the family who wants it, if the local authority considers that it is appropriate to do so. Local authorities have the discretion to do that and they can do it as many times as they wish. And of course, they could create joint tenancies, which would allow succession to occur a number of times, as I have said. I understand that COSLA is content with the clause as it stands and that no representations have been received from tenants or their representatives on the matter. We think it is a sensible way of dealing with this.
If I may, I will finally answer the particular situation which the noble Lord postulated: that is to say, an elderly couple with a single child, perhaps an unmarried daughter, looking after them, which I think is what the noble Lord had in mind. If one of the parents dies, then the secure tenancy passes to the surviving spouse, but under the Bill it would not pass to the survivor, that is to say, to the child. However, as I have said, it is open to the landlord to give succession, as they mostly do at present, without any statutory compulsion. This they could do, and the easiest way to do it would be to take the child, if I may so call the person, into the tenancy.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation but I am afraid it is not reassuring. I was not talking about children; I was talking about an elderly couple, a husband and wife, who may have at home an unmarried daughter—or it could be a married daughter or a widow—who has come home or stayed at home specifically to look after the father and mother. Now the noble Earl tells me that under the statutory provision of security it will pass from the husband to the mother but will not pass, when the mother dies, to the person who has spent a considerable part of his or her life—perhaps the whole of it —in that home. He says they can rely upon the local authorities or that in the particular circumstances the husband and

1845
wife should get a joint tenancy or, if the father and the unmarried daughter are left, they should get a joint tenancy and so would be covered in that way. All this assumes that the local authority will grant that joint tenancy, but the local authority have certain rights here as well. I would rather see, in a position like that, the unmarried daughter being securely covered in respect of their home. I hope that the Government will look at this.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Throughout these proceedings the noble Lord has castigated the Government for not allowing responsible local authorities the discretion in the matter; and this is precisely what we are allowing them. We are saying that there should be, on a death, one succession, but not more than one, unless there are joint tenants. There is no earthly reason why a responsible local authority, as I have suggested, should not accept the survivor—I called it a child, but you can have some pretty old children, even though they are still children—into the tenancy. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and neither COSLA nor any of the tenants associations had anything to say about this. Apparently they thought that the provision as embodied in the Bill is perfectly satisfactory. Really, if one started to make the secure tenancy pass more than once it would open the thing up much too much, if one stops to think about it.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: No, it has long been the law in relation to private tenants that the succession passed twice. That has been the regular factor; and so here we are reducing the amount of security that was certainly formerly held in the privately-tenanted sector—
The EARL of MANSFIELD: Public.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: This is public. They have not had security hitherto. This is one of the great improvements that are being made. I welcome that, but I think that the Government could have met the wishes of the people of Scotland. I am perfectly sure people do not know about this. One of the troubles is that, once you put it into statute, that is the law. There is less likelihood of the generosity of spirit of local authorities being felt there. If the Government put that case to the people of
1846
Scotland, I am sure they would say that the house should automatically go to the daughter or the son who has lived with the parents and looked after them, and who, if the parents die, would automatically be faced with the possibility of having to leave.
Let us not forget that local authorities have done strange things in the past. I am sorry that the noble Earl has not been able to contact tenants. Someone concerned with the provisions in the last amendment on which we voted, and which was turned down, could have been consulted by the Government as truly representing tenants. I shall certainly withdraw the amendments, but I am very disturbed, indeed, by the information that I have been given and I may have to return to them at Report stage.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 19, line 25, leave out ("created on the death of the tenant").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Mansfield led us into this amendment. As your Lordships will see, it is a purely drafting amendment which has no major effect on the sense of the provision. It is clear from the first half of Clause 13(5) that the whole subsection applies only in the case of a tenancy which has already passed by succession on one occasion, and the words in the second half which this amendment seeks to remove are therefore redundant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Grounds for recovery of possession of dwelling-houses let under secure tenancies]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 59, line 14, after ("in") insert ("or in")
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 together. These are technical drafting amendments, which are intended to remove

1847
any scope for doubt as to whether it could be held that the present drafting excluded from the description of anti-social behaviour, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 2, conduct which was a nuisance or annoyance if it took place inside a house. It has been suggested to the Government that the present wording, "in the vicinity of the dwelling-house," might not cover this. Clearly, behaviour "in" the dwelling-house is fully as likely to be offensive to other inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and it would be nonsensical for it to be excluded from these provisions. These two amendments ensure that this behaviour is included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 59, line 20, after ("in") insert ("or in").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.24 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 60, line 40, at end insert ("including the need to be near another member of the family for the well-being of that member or of the tenant.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us to Schedule 2 and the suitability of accommodation, which takes us to Clauses 15 and 20. It envisages a situation where a sheriff grants a right to repossession of a house, but the landlord is under an obligation to provide suitable alternative accommodation. The guidance in respect of accommodation that is considered suitable is in paragraph 2 on page 60, which reads:
"In determining whether accommodation is reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family, regard shall be had to—

(a) its proximity to the place of work …;

(b) the extent of the accommodation …;

(c) the character of the accommodation …;

(d) the terms on which the accommodation is offered …;

(e) if any furniture was provided …;

(f) any special needs of the tenant or his family".

I suggest that one of the other considerations is:
"including the need to be near another member of the family for the wellbeing of that member or of the tenant".
1848
Many people change their abode to be near the parents whom they are looking after, and that is one of the considerations that should be taken into account in deciding whether the alternative accommodation is suitable. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am getting nearer to accepting one of the noble Lord's amendments. In fact, this is not an objectionable amendment, although it is taken verbatim from the English Housing Bill. But we consider that it is better left to be encompassed in the general criterion in our Bill, which is not paralleled in the Housing Bill. That refers, as the noble Lord has said to,
"any special needs of the tenant or his family",
which gives the courts greater scope for responsiveness to the circumstances of individual tenants. What I am telling the noble Lord is that the courts can pay attention to exactly the matters to which the noble Lord has drawn attention without writing it into the Bill. With that assurance, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It is not so much an assurance as an explanation. The assurance would come if you knew all the sheriffs in Scotland, and were satisfied that, when they construed the words,
"any special needs of the tenant or his family",
they would take into account what may not be the needs of the tenant and his own family, but of elderly parents who are another family altogether. They would need to construe the words "the tenant or his family" as meaning not his own immediate family, but the family from which he came.
I am disappointed. I did not realise that this was in the English Bill. I had enough to do reading this Bill and trying to make some sense of it, without reading another very much larger Bill and one written in a foreign language, anyway, which will be more familiar to the noble Earl, who, I gather, practises at the English Bar and not at the Scottish Bar, and will be more familiar with the terms there used, and less so with the terms used in this Bill. But it was not a bad explanation that he gave us this time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Variation of terms of secure tenancies]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 23, line 39, after ("of") insert ("section 10 of").
The noble Lord said: This is another technical drafting amendment, which does not affect the main sense of the provision. It merely clarifies the cross-reference to the Bill to be included in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969 by making it more specific. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Re-possession]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("the date") and insert ("service")
line 36, leave out ("send") and insert ("serve").
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 together. These are both technical drafting amendments to change the terminology in this section covering notices and bring it into line with that used elsewhere in the Bill in order to attract the general provisions which govern the service of notices contained in Clause 80 of the Bill. They are fairly simple amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 24, line 37,leave out ("first")and insert ("on").
The noble Lord: There is a slight printing error in the amendment as it
1850
appears on the Marshalled List. The amendment should read:
"Page 24, line 37, leave out first ('to') and insert ('on').
If I may direct your Lordships' attention to line 37 you will find that the word "to" occurs twice, and to put this matter beyond peradventure I beg to move that we leave out the first "to" and insert the word "on". Once again this is a technical amendment and I hope that your Lordships will agree to it because it will make things that much clearer.
Viscount SIMON: This is an obvious improvement on the drafting because notices are served on people and not to people, but through a misunderstanding in the previous amendment—which I know we cannot go back on now․the same trouble is going to arise. Perhaps on the previous amendment there is a word "to" which ought to be "on". If the noble Lord will look at it later he will find that is correct.
Lord LYELL: I did not quite understand the semantics, but the first time I looked at this amendment it seemed to me that, even without the previous amendment my amendment made slightly more sense, but I take the point that, if we look at the previous amendment, Amendment No. 83 is indeed consequential on Amendment No. 82 and I hope No. 81 as well. How-ever, looking at Amendment No. 83 it seemed to me to make adequate sense on its own.
Viscount SIMON: I am sorry I did not make myself clear and I am probably out of order, but on Amendment No. 82 we altered "send" to "serve". The passage read "send to the tenant" and obviously it ought to be "serve on the tenant". The "to" should be altered to "on".
Lord LYELL: That is precisely the amendment I was proposing with Amendment No. 83.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: You see the difficulty we get into when we start muddling about. We have perfectly simple language that everyone could understand. You were going to send something to somebody. Then someone came along and said: "Everyone can understand that, but that's not legal language;

1851
we must serve it on them." That is what it comes to, is it not? That is the result of the two amendments.
I am very glad that the noble Lord has given us the explanation for the amendment which has been on the Marshalled List for a long time. It has worried me for a long time. I do not know what my two Scottish colleagues are finding amusing about this, but I have been worrying about it. Here we have the word "to" at the beginning of a line and then it was the fourth last word in the same line, and we are told to leave out "to". I did not know which "to" was going to be left out until the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, got up and enlightened us. It made a tremendous difference; it took a burden off my mind that had been there since I had read this strange amendment.
I did not think the two amendments were necessary in the first instance. Let us have some fun. I want to hear the explanation as to whether I am right that the words are far too simple, that we must have a legal term, "serve on", rather than "send to". If you "send to", you have no idea as to whether the person receives it; whereas if you "serve" it on him he has got to receive it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May there not be a simpler explanation? If one looks back to Amendment No. 81, surely there is a question not just of terminology but of fact, because the date of the notice might not be the date on which it was served, and "the date" has been changed to "service". Therefore, you have to alter "send" to "serve" in any case to match that.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I was quite happy with No. 81.
Lord LYELL: We have had a fascinating discussion. I think we should end this ritual clog dance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Subletting]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 26, line 31, at end insert—
("(8) Where the principal tenancy is brought to an end under Section 12(1) of this Act the landlord shall offer suitable alternative accommodations to a sub-tenant within the meaning of this section").
The noble Lord said: This is a new subsection (8) covering the position of those who are sub-tenants in a case where the principal tenancy has been brought to an end under Clause 12(1); in other words, the death of the actual secure tenant. The secure tenant could not have a sublet without the permission of the landlord. He had to have his written consent. The circumstances have changed but it means that if the tenancy is ended then he himself is rendered homeless.
Bearing in mind that the tenant who has died had to get the written permission of the landlord and the landlord knows the sub-tenant is there, surely it is fair that the landlord should rehouse the subtenant. It may well be suggested it is unnecessary because if we make them homeless under the Homeless People's Act they have got to be rehoused, but it would be far more tidy if we did it in a particular way.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, proposes that people who are accepted as sub-tenants by tenants of housing authorities with those authorities' consent, and at their request, should automatically have the right to be re-housed by the authority if for any reason the main tenancy comes to an end.
The provision included in the Bill to give tenants of housing authorities the right to take in lodgers or sub-tenants is intended to ensure that the best possible use is made of the housing stock. There is in general a surplus of larger houses in the stock compared with small houses or flats. A good number of tenants are therefore obliged to live in accommodation somewhat larger than their present needs require; many have surplus rooms which they would be glad to let to lodgers or sub-tenants. Such an arrangement is advantageous to the tenant, who would receive a small rent from the sub-tenant to help meet outgoings on heating and

1853
rates, and so on; it is advantageous to the sub-tenant, who may well be a student or other young, single person whose housing needs are not such as to qualify him for the main tenancy of a local authority house but who finds it difficult and expensive to obtain private accommodation. Finally, it is advantageous to the community, because houses which are lived in and kept in good repair, well ventilated and heated are less likely to deteriorate.
All these advantages will be lost if authorities are not prepared to give their consent for sub-tenancies, and that is likely to be the result if this amendment is accepted. An automatic duty on the authority to rehouse any sub-tenant if the main tenancy came to an end would be an enormous disincentive for that authority to grant consent for sub-tenancies to be created. It would not wish to lay itself open to the obligation to house people who might well, in normal circumstances, have no housing priority whatsoever. It would also be a disincentive to the tenant, because sub-tenants would have an acute interest in the main tenancy being brought to an end so that they could get to the head of the housing authority's waiting list for an independent tenancy. Imagine, if you will, the possible opportunities for corruption that could arise if the unscrupulous chose this method of queue-jumping the waiting list.
Sub-tenancies are not proposed as a replacement for normal local authority housing. They are intended as an additional form of housing, particularly catering for types of people who normally would not qualify for local authority tenancies. It is therefore illogical to suggest that the ending of a sub-tenancy consequent upon the termination of the main tenancy should enlarge the conversion of the sub-tenant into a main tenant elsewhere in the stock. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: That is one of the most convincing arguments which I have heard today, and I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Terms of secure tenancy relating to sub-letting]:
6.42 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 61, line 20, after ("consent") insert ("with or without conditions").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 85. It refers to the point that we mentioned earlier: that the person who wishes to have a sub-let must get permission in writing from the landlord. In relation to an application under paragraph 1, the landlord may consent, or he may refuse his consent, provided that he does not refuse his consent unreasonably.
"The landlord shall serve on the tenant notice in writing of his consent or refusal, and in the case of refusal the reasons therefor …".
It may be possible for the landlord to write conditions into the consent. Therefore, I suggest that after the word "consent" in line 20․" the landlord shall serve on the tenant notice in writing of his consent or refusal "․the words "with or without conditions" should be inserted. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: We see no reason why a landlord's consent to sub-letting or taking lodgers should be subject to conditions. Already there are provisions which allow the landlord to ensure that no excessive charges are made and I do not see that there are other matters about which the landlord need concern himself. If one looks at the private rented sector or at owner-occupiers renting out their homes, one sees that it is often necessary for the consent of the landlord or the building society to be obtained, but it would be unusual for conditions to be attached. Consequently, we see no reason why public sector tenants should be subject to such restrictions. There have been too many petty restrictions in the past, and this Bill is an attempt to set tenants free from unnecessary interference with the use of their homes. It is a matter of reasonableness.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Jacques): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: No. Just put the question.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 61, line 32, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Lord said: If a landlord refuses his consent, then the aggrieved secure tenant of this local authority house can go to the sheriff about it and he has to decide whether or not the refusal is reasonable. In paragraph 6, which I suggest should be left out, the sheriff has to have regard, in particular, to whether the consent would lead to overcrowding in such circumstances as to render the occupier guilty of an offence and also to whether the landlord proposes to carry out works on the dwelling-house or on the building of which it forms part that will affect the accommodation likely to be used by the sub-tenant.
I suggest that we should leave out that paragraph. We should leave the matter to the good sense of the sheriff. Obviously these are matters which would be put to him by the landlord. Can we not trust our sheriffs up to this point? Do we have to say, "Ah, one of the things you have to bear in mind is whether or not the tenant might be guilty of an offence if he overcrowds". That will be news to everybody else, but it will hardly be news to the sheriff. He is a man who knows the law and it would be in relation to the law that he would have to decide. It is one of the points for refusal. The noble Earl was concerned about petty restrictions on the tenant. I think we should be concerned, too, about the petty instructions that we are giving to the sheriffs of Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: There is no question of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 in any way fettering the discretion of the sheriff or, indeed, of imposing upon him any restrictions, whether petty or otherwise. The amendment would deprive the court of the guidance which paragraph 6 offers to it. Perhaps I may resolve the noble Lord's anxieties about this paragraph if I point out that the considerations are not meant to be exclusive, as mentioned in paragraph 6.
1856
The sheriff may have regard to any other circumstances which he regards as relevant, but the paragraph directs his attention in particular to two considerations: first, whether sub-letting would lead to overcrowding and, secondly, whether the landlord intends, in the near future, to carry out works.
It is wholly reasonable, I suggest, in the circumstances that the court should be required to have regard to those circumstances. It would not be in the tenant's interests to be allowed to sub-let if, by so doing, he, no doubt unwittingly, committed a criminal offence. It is right, equally, that the court's attention should be specially drawn to that possibility in order to protect the tenant against the consequences of his own ignorance. The same argument would apply if it was foreseeable that the amount of accommodation available in the house would be reduced as a result of works prepared by the landlord. As I have said, this is really a matter of guidance to a court. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied by the explanation.
Lord GALPERN: I think that the noble Earl ought to agree to this amendment. As a practising advocate, surely he knows that a solicitor appearing on behalf of a local authority to defend their reason for refusing the sub-tenancy would regard it as his duty to explain to the sheriff those sections of the Act which had to be paid heed to in order to avoid overcrowding, which would constitute a criminal offence. That is the duty of the local authority's solicitor or agent, acting on their behalf. But, for whatever reason, as I would hope that he would accept this amendment, my noble friend Lord Ross has now agreed that sheriffs do have some wisdom, because earlier he said, "You don't know our sheriffs in Scotland". I am glad that he now recognises that without this instruction or attention being drawn to this particular possibility they can use their own judgment and decide whether or not a refusal was justified.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: In this case I am against the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in that I do understand that even sheriffs, great men though they are, like to know the opinion of Parliament and what Parliament intended, and I

1857
consider that the instruction would appear to be reasonable.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: I have no great notion of sheriffs since I seldom meet them except in the movies, but I do recall that a little earlier this afternoon, while we were discussing amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Ross in Part II of Schedule 2, paragraph 2 (f), my noble friend suggested that we should add certain words to the end of that subparagraph. The noble Earl very convincingly argued then that the general proposition contained in the subparagraph that any special needs were to be taken into account already contained the propositions which my noble friend wished to be included. Is this not something of the same sort wherein the particular ideas to which attention is drawn in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 are already included in the reasonableness which is the mark of paragraph 5 of the same schedule? I should have thought that the same argument that applied to Schedule 2 would apply here. Although I am no lawyer I am reinforced in this thought by an impassioned speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a week or two ago when we were debating the Employment Bill, in which he remarked that where a general proposition had been stated in a law it was weakened by including particular exceptions. He said that in relation to an amendment of my own which I withdrew on the strength of his cogent arguments and the fact that I was quite clearly going to be defeated, but I am wondering whether that same principle does not apply here. I wonder whether the noble Earl might think again and concede the point to my noble friend.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: There is every difference in the world between those matters and what is contemplated and embraced by a subparagraph such as (f), which covers
"Any special needs of the tenant or his family".
I do not want to go back over old ground but, as I said and I think the Committee accepted, the previous case embraced what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was trying to put into the Bill. This is an entirely different matter; this is guidance to the court to have regard to one particu-
1858
lar aspect of the problem which it will have to decide as to whether a refusal has been reasonable or not in certain circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Galpern, comes from a part of the world where I suppose all lawyers are perfect; they know their law, they come into court well briefed, having done their homework and whichever side they are appearing for, they are able to assist the court with complete impartiality to the best of their ability. Unfortunately․and I am an honorary sheriff myself․it does not happen that way throughout Scotland on all occasions. There are occasions when there are practitioners․and indeed courts too․who quite like to go back to a section and to receive just a little guidance as to how they might approach their duties in deciding a dispute such as this. It was in that spirit and in those circumstances that this was included in the Bill and I suggest that it is quite a good provision.
Lord GALPERN: Before the noble Earl sits down, if the petitioner was failing in his duty towards his client I am quite sure that the client, if it happened to be a local authority, would make sure that that was his first and only argument.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: I do not wish to detain the Committee but I wonder whether the noble Earl would reconsider what he has just said. He seemed to me to be saying that paragraph 6 was merely guidance as to what might be reasonable. Guidance is something which should be taken into account in deciding whether something was reasonable or unreasonable, but is that not exactly the proposition which my noble friend argued in relation to Schedule 2?․namely, following the words included in his amendment he was giving guidance as to what would be special. If it was wrong in Schedule 2 to give guidance as to what was special, how does it become right in Schedule 3 to give guidance as to what is reasonable? I do not wish to go on about this too long, but I am not as yet convinced.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I think one of the mistakes that my noble friend makes is to expect consistency in argument about this. I felt very strongly about it and then of course I was reassured

1859
in my feelings as to how right I was when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said he was against me: then I knew I was right. I was all for trusting sheriffs but then up gets the noble Earl and says that he is an honorary sheriff. We cannot leave anything to chance in a case like that, can we? Honorary sheriffs sometimes act as sheriffs. He ought really to have declared an interest.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No, because honorary sheriffs do not get paid. I really have a non-interest.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I was going to say that we do not get paid here either, but that is not true of the unpaid honorary sheriff. The honorary sheriff does appear and does make decisions on occasions and it appals me to think that after our performance here and the inconsistency of argument that there has been we should allow this honorary sheriff to decide on a case without some kind of guidance. He has proved his own case by his confession.
Actually when we think of it, when a landlord refuses he has to give the reasons for his refusal. Now we are being told that we cannot trust the sheriffs to say whether these reasons were reasonable or not. So far as I understand the Bill it is only on these reasons that we are given and I have not the slightest doubt that if there was overcrowding with somebody with six in a family wanting to take lodgers into a two-bedroomed house, of course the reason would be given in refusing. If they were going to make some change of course a reason would be given. It is really trying to teach a grandmother to suck eggs when we put these two particular aspects in concerning reasonableness. I am still slightly alarmed that we shall get that position arising from a certain honourary sheriff somewhere in Perthshire and I think we had better give them some guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be the third schedule to the Bill?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask my noble friend a brief question. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 says:
1860
"In proceedings under paragraph 4 above, the Sheriff shall order the landlord to consent to the application unless it appears to him that the refusal is reasonable".
Can he consent with or without conditions? Some reasons may be good and some may be bad and he may think it would be right to consent subject to a particular condition in that case. The noble Lord says we have that amendment.
I am making a different point.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My understanding of the matter is that the sheriff consents or does not consent.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Lord DENAHM: I think this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage for dinner. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SUMMER TIME ORDER 1980
7.1 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 9th July.
The effect of the order before your Lordships is that summer time in 1981 and 1982 will start one week later than would ordinarily be the case, if both your Lordships' House and another place approve of the order and present the necessary Humble Address to Her Majesty. The reason why this change is proposed is that it is intended to arrange for a common date for starting summer time throughout the European Community in the years 1981 and 1982. For their part, the other member states of the European Community intend to start summer time one week earlier in 1981 and 1982 and that will make it possible to have a common starting date of 29th March in 1981 and 28th March in 1982.

1861
The Summer Time Act 1972 provides that summer time in the United Kingdom is the period beginning on the day after the third Saturday in March and ending on the day after the fourth Saturday in October. For the rare occasions when the day after the third Saturday in March is Easter Day the Act provides exceptionally that summer time is to begin on the day after the second Saturday, and then one has a very early summer time. Section 2 of the Act provides that in relation to any year Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the period of summer time shall be such period as may be specified in the order instead of the usual period. No such order may be made unless, after copies of the draft thereof have been laid before Parliament, each House presents an Address to Her Majesty praying that an order be made, and it is a draft order of that kind which I am submitting to your Lordships this evening.
Summer time arrangements have existed in this country since 1916, although there have been changes during that time in the period of summer time. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and I may both remember that many years ago, in our schooldays, there was double summer time, when it was extremely difficult to find any darkness by which to go to sleep until a very late hour at night. The Government believe that summer time is a popular institution in the country at large, and it is of interest that recent developments in other countries indicate that they too have come to appreciate the advantages of having a period of summer time when clocks are put forward one hour in order to have more daylight in the summer evenings.
This year summer time is being applied by all member states of the European Community and indeed by many other states throughout the Continent of Europe. There is, however, a difference in practice between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic on the one hand and the other member states of the European Community on the other. In saying that I am not talking about a difference in time between Central European Time and Greenwich Mean Time; I am talking about a difference in summer time between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and the rest of Europe. The difference
1862
in practice to which I am referring is simply that while summer time in 1980 runs from 16th March to 26th October in the United Kingdom and Ireland, it is running from the 6th April to 28th September in other EEC states. As your Lordships may imagine, these differences, which have occurred for a number of years, give rise to considerable complications for transport undertakings, and indeed for many people who have personal or commercial dealings with people in other European countries.
For these reasons the European Community has had under discussion for some time the possibility of adopting common starting and finishing dates for summer time. At the beginning of the period the difference between the United Kingdom and Ireland on the one hand and the other European Community countries on the other is only two weeks, whereas the difference at the end of the period amounts to four weeks. The Government believe at present that the public at large might not willingly accept any shortening of our summer time in October, and we have, therefore, not felt able to support proposals that summer time throughout the Community should end in mid-October. We have explained to our partners in the Community that we see considerable difficulty in achieving a common finishing date for summer time.
For the time being, therefore, the Community has concentrated in its discussions on a common starting date. The Transport Council of the Community agreed in principle in Brussels on 24th June to a draft directive which would require member states to adopt starting dates in 1981 and 1982 which will be one week later than the date which would ordinarily apply in the United Kingdom and one week earlier than usual on the mainland of Europe. The Government welcome this as a sensible compromise but have placed a reserve on the proposal until approval of both Houses has been obtained.
I should emphasise to your Lordships that the draft order before the House this evening provides for a change only in starting dates, and then only for the next two years. Any change that might be proposed for 1983 or later years would have to be the subject of a further draft order, or possibly amending legisla-

1863
tion if a longer-term change were in view. Further discussions are to be held in the Community both on the scope for permanent agreement on common starting dates and on the scope for agreement on common finishing dates. I give an assurance that in these discussions the Government will take full account of any views that may be expressed in your Lordships' House or by the public at large.
Those are the reasons for this draft order, but may I just refer to one matter which is in the order which I have not touched on in any way. Articles 2 and 3 each provide for the hour of changeover to be one o'clock Greenwich Mean Time. This means that clocks would go forward in March from 1 a.m. GMT to 2 a.m. summer time, and then in October back from 2 a.m. summer time to 1 a.m. GMT. I mention this only because the usual hour of changeover under the 1972 Act is 2 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time. The hour of 1 a.m. is proposed for March in order to bring about the desired result that summer time should start at the same moment throughout the European Community. There is not, of course, the same necessity to observe the new hour of changeover in October, since common finishing dates, as I have been at pains to explain, have not been agreed. But we think it will be simpler to have the same hour for putting the clocks back as for putting them forward.
Finally, may I repeat, after this perhaps rather lengthy explanation, that the proposed changes are limited in scope. They are, first, that summer time in 1981 and 1982 should start seven days later than usual, and secondly, that the hour of changeover should be 1 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. The equivalent changes are to be made by the other member states of the European Community and the combined effect will be a common starting date throughout the Community in the years in question. In view of the present inconvenience caused by the different starting dates currently observed, the Government believe that the proposed changes will bring about a useful improvement, and I therefore commend the draft order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that
1864
the Summer Time Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid defore the House on 9th July.․(Lord Belstead.)
7.9 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for explaining this proposed order to the House, and also for the assurances he has given about the views of Members of both Houses of Parliament. Although, on the face of it, the subject matter of this order looks innocuous enough, it is just the type of measure that is capable of arousing deep feelings and of sparking off fierce controversy. No doubt there will be those who will see this draft order as a further example, certainly so far as the starting dates are concerned, of the efforts of those in the European Economic Community who seek to regulate our lives in, as they would put it, an even more rigid and uniform way and who therefore will regard it as most unwelcome. But undoubtedly there will also be those who will claim that the provision is bound to be beneficial and will help tourists and travellers of all kinds and be helpful to industry, commerce and others. I do not find it easy to work up an immense amount of enthusiasm one way or the other, but I would not invite my noble friends to oppose this measure. I would certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said about the popularity of the principle of summer time in this country.
There is just one query which I should like to raise with the noble Lord. I notice that the explanatory note to the order says that:
"This Order also applies to the Bailiwick of Guernsey but not to the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man which have their own legislation on the subject".
Also, this is a matter which is dealt with in the Summer Time Act 1972 at Section 5 which says:
"(1) Unless other provision is made by a law of the States of Jersey or of Guernsey or by an Act of Tynwald, as the case may be, this Act shall, subject to subsection (2) below, apply to the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man in like manner as it applies to Great Britain.
(2) An Order in Council made under section 2 above may make different provision with respect to Great Britain and with respect to the Channel Islands the Isle of Man or any of them".
I wonder what will be the position in

1865
Jersey and the Isle of Man and whether they will have the same summer time as we shall have during the two years that the noble Lord has mentioned.
As the periods of summer time are being specified, I hope very much that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that those periods of summer time in 1981 and 1982 will contain some time at least which will be seasonably recognisable as summer time. Anything that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can do in that direction I am sure will meet with universal acclaim not only here, but outside your Lordships' House as well.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will appreciate that I mean nothing personal when I say that I, for one, do not welcome the changes in our habitual practices in this country which this order proposes. We are told that shortening the period of summer time by one week is desirable on two grounds. The first is that it conforms with the desire of the EEC to harmonise matters of this sort generally throughout the Community. The second is that it makes life easier for airlines, shipping lines and so on.
As regards the first reason, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the latest public opinion polls, only 23 per cent. of the population of this country now support Britain's membership of the EEC? If people feel that the EEC bureaucrats are depriving them of an hour of daylight for one week prior to Easter, then that proportion is likely to fall even further.
As regards the second reason, I point out that postponing the introduction of summer time by one week may help airlines, shipping lines and so on, but is the noble Lord aware that in the United States there are no fewer than four time zones and seven time zones if we take Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico into account? The United States' economy is pretty successful despite that as I am sure that the noble Lord would agree. After the usual hard winter that we have in this country, which is more often than not followed by an almost equally hard early spring, most people look forward to the day in March when they can return home from work in the daylight. Your Lordships may ask, "Well, does one week
1866
matter one way or another?" I suggest that, in this particular instance, it does. I suggest that whatever the advantages to the airlines may be and whatever the advantages to the harmonising zealots of the EEC, the British people as a whole will not welcome this order or rather the changes which it proposes.
Can the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, give us an assurance that under no circumstances will the final day of summer time be brought forward from the fourth Saturday in October, subsequent to 1982, without the very fullest consultation with all representative bodies in this country?
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I rather find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, not in respect of our membership of the EEC, which I fully support, but because he has pointed out that it is much easier to adjust to different time zones than is often made out. I view this effort at harmonisation as an erosion of a benefit which we have gained and have had for many years. I do not know whether your Lordships know the history of how we came to have summer time. It was due to the efforts of a builder called Willett. In fact, he built a large part of the Cadogan Estate down Chelsea. He used to ride around in the early summer mornings and wish that other people were up at the same time as he was and seeing the beauty of the morning with him. He hit upon the idea of adjusting the clocks because it was easier to adjust the clocks than to adjust people's habits. He brought the matter to the attention of Members of Parliament. Long and complicated Committee proceedings were instituted in the other place, at which all sorts of noteworthy people like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the Astronomer Royal of the Cape of Good Hope and I do not know who else, gave evidence for days. That took place in about 1908. He had a Bill brought before Parliament every year until 1914 when he died, by which time I believe I am right in saying that the French Government had adopted the idea. But it was instituted in this country in 1916, when the noble Lord, Lord Samuel, was Home Secretary, as a measure to help save fuel, which is surely a topical matter.
So, by losing this one week we are losing not only a general benefit, but the practical side of the matter in that un-

1867
doubtedly summer time saved fuel in the First World War and that was why double summer time was instituted in the Second World War in the summer, and single summer time in the winter. So far as I know, there were never any complaints about double summer time. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has mentioned some complaints, but when he was a child he had to go to bed when it was light anyway and he must have become used to sleeping with the sun shining.
I for one very much regretted the passing of the British standard time which meant that we did not have to fiddle about with the clocks at all but that we had an extra hour of daylight in the winter evenings. So, I conclude by repeating that I am very sorry that we have lost this one week in spring. I am very glad indeed that the Government will not yield over our October date and I ask them to press our colleagues in the European Community to extend their period of summer time, if only for the very practical reason that it will contribute a great deal towards the saving of fuel.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I regret to say that I did not come prepared for a debate of this nature, although as a Scotsman I kept an eye upon what was going on. It is interesting that the order refers to the Channel Islands. We must recall that there are islands in the North where the situation is entirely different. I recall that we had double standard time or what was called British standard time here in this House. I remember my old friend Lord Conesford moving an amendment to the Title of the Bill that it should be called the Central German Standard Time Bill.
It is wise to remember that the difficulties in Scotland over this are very great, and we can also rely upon the noble Lord the Minister and his advisers to keep in touch with the Scottish Office on this subject, because the degrees of latitude go down very remarkably as one gets up to Orkney and Shetland. If my noble friend Lord Cromartie were here, he would be on his feet at once even about what goes on in Cromartie. It is as well to remember that our problems in Scotland are quite different from those in Guernsey and Jersey, and although we welcome the idea of summer time, it must be judiciously
1868
introduced as regards Scotland. Indeed, in order to accord with Europe, I believe that it might be wise to accept the week's difference which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has recommended.
Lord RAGLAN: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that many of us, of course, understand that the hours of daylight in Northern Scotland are shorter? ․but by adjusting the clock by one hour one way or the other it does not diminish the length of daylight which is available. It merely puts one hour at one end of the day or the other. Does the noble Lord really believe that it is a problem there, or was the protest against British Standard Time merely an assertion of Scottish nationalism?
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I live in the South of Scotland and, as I have said, if my noble friend Lord Cromartie were here, he would have been on his feet in a moment. It matters a great deal to the working people as regards the timing of buses, train services and the like. All I can say is that it is up to the Scotsmen in this House to appeal to the Government to keep an eye on this problem of the hours in Scotland.
7.22 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, give expression to a view which I know he made it clear he does not hold particular strongly but which he realises others do hold, that this could be said to be a further attempt to regulate our lives. I think that the noble Lord and I would probably agree that when one comes to look at the actual terms of the articles of the order one finds that the United Kingdom is going in one direction in one week in order to meet our colleagues in the European Community, and that the other members of the European Community are coming one week in the other direction in order to meet us. Therefore, there is fairness as a basis for the introduction of this order.
If I may say so, there are also sensible reasons, on which I did not embark at any length, and I assure your Lordships that I shall not embark on them at any length now. Perhaps I may content myself with saying to the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Raglan, that I under-

1869
stand that the complications of the present difference in the introduction of summer time between the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the European Community mean that there can be, for example, four changes each year in the timing of transport services between the United Kingdom and France and, of course, significant additional costs arise in that sort of way for airline operators. I understand that the complexities of the timetables have led to confusion for some members of the travelling public at least.
Therefore, this is not just being done for the sake of harmonisation. It is being done for sensible, practical reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me what the situation will be for Jersey and the Isle of Man. Article 1(2) provides:
"… This order shall have effect in the United Kingdom and the Bailiwick of Guernsey".
The changes proposed in the order are also proposed to be made in the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man, but those islands have their own legislation on the subject and are, therefore, not provided for in the draft order. That is the mechanics of the way in which it will happen if the legislatures of Jersey and the Isle of Man see fit to bring in the same provisions.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan gave the answer which I should give to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the hours of daylight. As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that there would be people who would resent losing hours of daylight because of the change in the clocks. In all friendliness to the noble Lord, I would say that if he cares to get up just a little earlier, he will find that during the final week of March, before the clocks go forward there are exactly the same number of hours of daylight as there would be if the clocks had already been changed.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord, I was referring to people coming home from work in the evening.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, precisely; but I am telling the noble Lord that if they care to get up earlier in the morning they will still find that there is just as much daylight to enjoy. When they come home in the evening, by the time one gets towards
1870
the end of March they will find that the onset of darkness at that time of year is not a problem. However, my noble friend Lord Ferrier quite rightly put his finger on the problem when he said that there can be troubles in Scotland as regards the bringing into effect of summer time and the ending of summer time if one made changes which were too drastic and which might be seen to fit the South of England but which might not fit the North of Scotland.
However, I take seriously the question which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, put to me for an assurance. I sought to explain in my opening speech that we are talking only about a starting date for summer time because we have squarely told our European partners that, as things stand at present, we are not prepared to support a move to end summer time much earlier, although of course talks are continuing. I repeat an assurance, which was implied in the words that I spoke that the Government will certainly take account of all that is said in your Lordships' House, in another place and by members of the general public in continuing their discussions within the European Community. In taking into account what is said, we shall, of course, take serious account of what is said in Scotland. With that assurance, I hope that now the comparatively modest scope of this order may be approved by your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 p.m. until 8.]

TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 23 [Landlord's consent to work]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("(including wireless or television aerials)").
The noble Lord said:
"Alterations etc. to dwelling-house. It shall be a term of every secure tenancy that the tenant shall not carry out work "—
This is, shall we call it?, the cock-a-snook at the local authority clause. Then they come down to earth and discover that it is not quite so easy, because the Government are getting behind the landlords of the local authority and saying, "If they are secure tenants, then we agree they shall not carry out work, other than interior decoration, in relation to the dwelling-house without the consent in writing of the landlord, which shall not be unreasonably withheld".
Then we define "work":
"—alteration, improvement or enlargement of the dwelling-house or of any fitting or fixtures".
I think we can agree with that. Then,
"(b) addition of new fittings or fixtures";
and then we have in brackets,
"(including wireless or television aerials)".
I suggest that we leave out, "wireless or television aerials".
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is coming in or not because this would pose an interesting question that he might well put. I think I will put it for him. When we dealt with the question of reasonable accommodation, and whether it served the special needs of the family, we were told by the Minister that it was quite unnecessary to put in the words, "including the proximity to other members of the family who might need help". It was said that this was comprehended within the special needs of the family. Here is a classic case of exactly the same thing,
"including wireless or television aerials".
After all, they are new "fittings or fixtures", so why do we need to specify these? I should have thought that people would be able to understand that.
One of the reasons why I put down this amendment was because I remember as a Member of Parliament being approached by the tenant of a local authority house who, no doubt, will soon become a secure tenant, and who wanted to put up a television aerial to suit his particular television set. It had to be in a particular place just outside his window, and the local authority said, "No. If you want a television aerial it must go
1872
somewhere else". I thought there was no justification at all for putting in this, drawing attention to a possible restriction, "including wireless or television aerials". If it is desirable to refuse them this without permission, then it could be included within the addition of new fittings or fixtures. Really if I had been doing my job properly for amendment I should have left the words, "wireless or television aerials" in and put in the word "excluding" instead of "including", because I think this is a bit pettifogging and giving a little too much power to the local authorities in this particular respect.
The rest of the clause I am entirely in agreement with. The:
"erection of a garage, shed or other structure"
No one who is an owner-occupier could do that kind of thing without getting the permission of the people round about him. This, I suppose, would equally apply in respect of anybody within a borough where there is an old dean of guild court still there. They would need to get a minor warrant for it, and within that get the permission of the local authority․not necessarily the housing authority․to do that kind of thing. I think it would be right that that should be restricted in this particular way. Remember that the provision has that it shall not be done
"… without the consent in writing of the landlord, which shall not be unreasonably withheld".
On wireless or television aerials, I think we could forget that altogether; hence the amendment to leave it out. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: In the vast majority of cases, there can be no doubt that a tenant should be able to put up a television or wireless aerial, and I have no doubt that landlords will give automatic consent in those cases. However, wireless and television aerials are not always the unobtrusive structures which one would like and one would tolerate. They could be very large and unsightly structures where it would be right in some instances that a landlord should have some say. For example, to impose restrictions on where they are located and how they are secured in the interests of the safety of those living round the property.
Nevertheless, I have been asking myself first whether "wireless or television

1873
aerials" are ejusdem generic so far as new fittings or fixtures are concerned, and I am not persuaded that they are. Equally, I bear in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. This was taken from the English Bill and put in in order to be consistent with it. I am not persuaded that we need it in the Bill. I may be getting very soft, but I am not prepared to recommend to the Committee that this amendment should not be accepted.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Could we have a more positive statement?
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I trust that we shall have this in writing in Hansard tomorrow, and it should be in really black letters․or indeed in red letters because this is a red letter day. I am grateful for the rather hesitant, rather reluctant step-by-step approach. Two steps forward and one step back, but eventually we came to the position, as I understand it, although the noble Earl put it rather negatively, that the Government are not going to oppose this particular amendment. Well, we are grateful for that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Reimbursement of cost of work]:
8.10 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 27, line 26, leave out from ("him") to ("before") in line 27.
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment designed to clarify the clause, which deals with the termination of a secure tenancy and the landlord having power, in addition to any other power he has, to make a payment to the tenant for work the tenant has done. I do not object to that, but the provision then says:
"or by any predecessor of his as tenant under the same secure tenancy".
It says "any predecessor", but we have already been told that there can really only be one predecessor and only one transfer of tenancy; I think that was the
1874
conclusion we came to when we discussed an earlier amendment. What worries me is the use of the word "any" here and the tracking back that appears to be done for work carried out by "any predecessor". I suggest we are taking a bit of a chance on this one, and if what was said before applies․that there can be only one transfer of secure tenancy․then it should be "the predecessor" rather than "any predecessor". I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The provision to which the amendment refers does not give tenants the right to be reimbursed for works which they or their successors under the same tenancy may have carried out; it merely gives the landlord discretion to reimburse in such cases if it sees fit. I do not know whether the noble Lord grasps the distinction.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It is discretionary, yes.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Yes, it is discretionary, and the effect of the amendment, if the noble Lord meant it․I do not think he did․would be to remove the discretion of the landlord to reimburse in cases where the works were carried out by a predecessor in the same tenancy. This of course refers to a tenancy which has been passed from one member of a family to another, on the death of the first, under Clause 13.
On this matter of only one successor, would remind the noble Lord that there can be more than one successor where a joint tenancy is created on the first succession. The sort of case we are dealing with is that of a widow whose husband was sole tenant prior to his death and carried out certain works to the house at his own expense. The widow could become tenant in succession to her late husband under the clause as drafted, and could be reimbursed by the landlord for the works carried out by her late husband in the eventuality of her being removed to other accommodation, for instance to special housing for the elderly. The landlord․the local authority․could do that if it wished under these provisions, but of course if the amendment were agreed to, then the local authority, the landlord, would not have that discretion any longer. I hope the

1875
noble Lord will be content with that explanation and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I am reasonably content with the noble Earl's explanation, but I would ask him to have another look to make sure the words are accurate, and I specifically have in mind the word "any": it gives the impression that one might be able to track back considerably. The Minister said earlier that the tenancy could be transferred only once, although the local authority out of the goodness of its heart might allow some other member of the family to carry on. I suggest we must draw the line somewhere as to liability in respect of work done earlier which could be considered for payment. I appreciate it is only discretionary․I have been dealing with Bills for quite a long time․but often, by common use, this sort of thing comes to be expected by tenants giving up a secure tenancy, and therefore perhaps we need a limitation of some sort. That is why I suggest that "the predecessor" or "his predecessor" might be preferable to "any predecessor". I see the difficulty with a joint tenancy, but I am not entirely satisfied that the wording is clear.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: In view of the Minister's example of the widow, may I ask whether "his" embraces "hers" where it says "any predecessor of his as tenant"?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Yes, it is unisex.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: With that explanation, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie․if I may dare call him a friend after the kind of things he has been saying during the day․will permit me to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 27, line 27, after ("of") insert ("section 23 of").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.17 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 27, line 33, leave out ("under") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: Are we about to have another amendment accepted by the Government? This raises a matter of grammar, not of substance. Subsection (2) says:
"The amount of any payment … shall not exceed the cost of the work in respect of which it is made, under deduction of the amount …".
I should have thought "after deduction of the amount" would have been much clearer. I suppose, however, there is a danger that people might understand the provision, so perhaps the noble Earl, who is a lawyer and Minister, would insist on sticking to the subsection as drafted. For the sake of noble Lords who are simpleminded like myself and who prefer to understand Acts of Parliament, I suggest that we replace the word "under" with "after".
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am always prepared to consider the arguments of a simple man. Although the meaning is perfectly plain to those of us who can interpret the Statute, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that we must try to look after those who may not be able to read the Statute quite so well. Accordingly, I accept the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Twice within a few minutes! We should have had dinner about three hours earlier, if food arouses the passions of generosity towards the Opposition in the heart and mind of the Minister. We are grateful for his acceptance of the amendment and hope he will carry on in that vein for the next six or seven hours while we are considering the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Restrictions on residential requirements]:
8.20 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("give priority") and insert ("determine the priority given").
The noble Lord said: This is another simple matter of English, concerned with relating the words to what the local authority actually does. Where a local authority has rules which give priority to applicants on its housing list the rules do not give priority to applicants; they determine the priority that is given. That is very simple, and I should prefer the provision to be stated in that clear way. That is the whole purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This is a drafting point that was discussed in another place, and at the suggestion of the noble Lord's successor in title, my honourable friend agreed to consider just this point. He has done so, with the draftsman, and we remain of the view that the Bill as it stands more accurately expresses what is meant than do the words suggested in the amendment. I am reluctant to be drawn into a discussion on semantics, particularly when it comes to drafting, but the use of the word "determine" in the amendment suggests that the rules lead inexorably to the final decision, whereas our information about the allocation methods of local authorities indicates that in most areas the rules are a guide, on the basis of which officials or councillors make final decisions, and it is this process that the Bill is intended to embrace, its use of the word "give" implying less conclusiveness than does the word "determine". For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It is far too early in the evening to start arguing about a small point like this. At one stage, I spent quite a long time․admittedly it was in Glasgow․teaching English. Certainly it was a long time ago, but I am prepared to dispute this matter with the noble Earl․and to dispute it at length. However, I do not think that it is worthwhile. I think that people understand what is there, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Publication of rules]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 29, line 23, after ("published") insert ("by a body").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely technical, drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Repeal of provisions of Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 29, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We now move on to something entirely different: the abolition of reserve powers to limit rents. One thing that I rather deplore in Bills is legislation by reference, though too often we have to resort to it. Clause 28(1) states:
"Section 1(5) of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 "—
I am perfectly sure that we all read that section before we came into the Committee today—
"(no provision to be made for surplus in housing revenue account) is repealed".
If we have not read the section referred to, I am sure that we are all dying to know exactly what it means and to know the implications of this particular reference. Of course without an explanation the reference is nonsense; it does not mean a thing to anybody. I put down the amendment in order to give the Government an opportunity to explain exactly what this is and what they are doing here. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Subsection (1), which Amendment No. 96 would delete, effects a further release of local authorities from interference by central Government in their affairs. It frees islands and district councils from an unnecessary restriction in housing finance decision-making, and it prevents local authorities from being placed in a difficulty over their rent policies. Section 1(2) of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 allows authorities to charge such reasonable rents as they may

1879
determine and the retention of the embargo on accumulating surplus might well in some places prevent the charging of reasonable rents. If an authority wishes to accumulate funds with a particular object in mind, there is no reason to forbid that course. The point is to allow flexibility to the local authorities so far as the charging of reasonable rents is concerned.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Am I right in thinking that at the moment local authorities cannot so arrange matters that they have a surplus and that now this provision will allow them to raise the rents as high as they like, regardless of whether they make a surplus from doing so, subject to any other limitations that there may well be? So they are now being encouraged to fix their rent policy so as to enable them to make a profit. It is almost an encouragement to raise rents, is it not? That is one of the dangers, unless there is some other provision whereby the Secretary of State will safeguard the interests of the tenants. I have no objection to the proposal provided that there is such a safeguard elsewhere. Can the noble Earl tell me whether there is such a safeguard?
I do not think that anyone objects to the fortuitous accumulation of a surplus, but there is nothing here about a particular reason or about what the local authority is to do with the surplus. I suppose that it could put all the surplus into the common good fund and have with it what in Scotland we used to call a "good water trip"․and the last thing that anyone ever saw on a water trip was water! I am perfectly sure that the noble Earl, as an ex-member of a local authority in Scotland, will know what I am talking about.
The danger in the proposal is its implications regarding the rents. Is it an encouragement to the local authorities to raise their rents excessively, and if it is, is there any other power whereby the Secretary of State can place a limit upon that in the interests of the tenants? Remember that in this Bill we are talking about tenants' rights, and I believe that this is a field in which the tenants should have very considerable rights.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord has raised two points. The first relates to the quantum, and so far as that
1880
is concerned, Section 1 (2) of the 1975 Act provides that reasonable rents must be charged. With regard to the disposal of the surplus, that is dealt with in subsection (2) of this clause, which is sandwiched between the noble Lord's two amendments to the clause. The Committee will see that under subsection (2) a new sub-paragraph 11(1) is written into the 1972 Act.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble Earl has answered one of my points, but not the other. Probably he appreciates that it might arise in another amendment that I may or may not move. It is clear that the local authorities can make a profit; they will he encouraged to make a profit. They can put the surplus into the general fund, not into the housing fund. So they can do virtually what they like with it within their duties as local authorities.
There are many people who think that if you are making a profit out of housing then the place for it to go is into the housing account, and it may well be that you could use it to improve the amenities of the houses and prevent the department from having to go to the Scottish Office for some particular development which the Scottish Office would not allow them to have. But the explanation is clear. We now know the purpose of the thing. We will just wait until we get to the end of this clause, and then we will get a fuller picture of what is involved. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.31 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 30, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Now we come to subsection (3) of the same clause, and with this all will be revealed, no doubt. That says:
"Section 2 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 (reserve powers to limit rents) is repealed".
I merely want to know the implications of that. I tend to forget things in my old age. The 1975 Act, of course, was an Act which was passed while I was Secretary of State. There was a time when I was familiar with every line and clause of it, but I just want the noble Earl

1881
the Minister of State to revive my memory, and to find out what is being repealed in subsection (3). I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Section 2 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 confers on the Secretary of State a power to limit or restrict individual authorities' council house rent increases, so what subsection (3) of this clause does is to remove yet another impediment to local decision-making; that is to say, it removes the possibility of interference by the Secretary of State in the fixing of local council house rent levels. There is no reason to suppose that any tenant will be disadvantaged by the Government's relinquishing this power of intervention, and I commend it to the Committee on that basis.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I wish I could be as confident as is the noble Earl that no local authority tenant will be disadvantaged. What this whole clause means, then, is that local authorities can raise their rents as high as they like and the Secretary of State will not interfere. He has thrown away the power he had of interfering․and interfering for the protection of the tenant. The real reason for subsection (1), for which I sought an explanation earlier, is that, of course, if they raise the rents they will make a profit out of the houses, so that way was cleared by the withdrawal of the restriction which said that they should not make a profit out of housing.
Let us be clear and let the tenants know what their new right is․the secure tenants, who have the right to buy their houses. It may be an encouragement for them to buy, because now, as I understand it․and I am prepared to be corrected․the local authorities can raise the rents by as much as they like, and the Government will not intervene. The Government have an interest here, because if the local authorities raise the rents too high then the tenants will apply for a rent rebate, and if they apply successfully for a rent rebate because the rents are too high then of course the Government will have to provide a very considerable sum of money. As a matter of fact, if we turn once again to the unfortunate Financial Memorandum we see that the Government are looking forward to that, because it says that it is
1882
estimated that there will be additional public expenditure of £1.15 million a year as a result of the provisions dealing with the rights of public sector tenants, including the right to buy; and some of this will be due to a considerable extent to the increase in rent rebates. So it is not a very pleasant outlook for the tenants.
Of course, the reaction of some tenants may well be that it will be a better bargain to buy the house. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government․so to raise rents that the local authority tenants will seek refuge in owner-occupation. I think it is going a bit far bearing in mind that many people are going to be given the right of choice, which the Government say they would prefer, just to rent their house. There is not much choice if we are going to force them into this position by so raising the rents. I myself do not think this is a sensible power that the Government are leaving to the local authorities; and the noble Earl should know from what has happened in the past in relation to rents that there can be resistance to this.
Certainly people will say, "Yes, but if you cannot afford to pay then there is the rent rebate". Not everyone applies for that; and I think it is quite wrong, when you are meeting a social need, as we are in respect of the provision of local authority housing, that we should deliberately set out to make a profit out of it. This is the position we are coming to under this Government. They are encouraging the local authorities to raise rents. Perhaps at this point the Minister will tell us what the limitation is that has been placed at the present time on any yearly increase by the local authorities. That will give us a fair idea as to what is going to face the local authorities in future although, of course, the Government are not going to intervene. But beyond what point?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: May I ask the Minister whether a local authority could apply any profit to reducing rates? I am not sure that a great many people in the centre of Scotland, and in Glasgow particularly, would not prefer to pay a little more for their houses and have jobs; and it is a fact that the higher rates in certain areas of Scotland have kept industry out of that area. So if profit

1883
could be applied to reducing rates, it might be in the better interests of the tenants in the long run.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I really think that this debate would have been very much better on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? than on a minute amendment taken by itself. However, perhaps we could have it now. I start by saying, or by repeating, that local authorities cannot by statute charge unreasonable rents, and this is made plain by Section 1(2) of the 1975 Act. I start from that point.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It is not "unreasonable". I think the word is "reasonable".
The Earl of MANSFIELD: One can make it positive or negative, whichever way one likes to, and I do not mind splitting hairs. But if the point of the noble Lord is that local authorities are going to use the freedom․and he has at moments in the discussions on this Bill urged the Government to allow local authorities freedom․to be reasonable according to their lights, this is a point of view which the Government share. There are moments when one has to give local authorities guidelines and other moments when one has to fetter their discretion in one direction or another, particularly if one thinks that it will not be very sensibly used. But all things considered, we believe, as I think the noble Lord does, that local authorities ought to be left alone to do their job to the best of their ability.
The Financial Memorandum contains no reference to increased rent rebate expenditure as a direct result of this Bill; and I do not suppose that the noble Lord was saying that it did. As I was going on to say, I would hope that the noble Lord would have withdrawn his amendment and then, if he wanted to challenge the whole of the clause, we could have a debate on "Clause stand part". Does that commend itself to the noble Lord? I am trying to save time.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I am trying to save time, too. I have not raised any question on "Clause stand part", much as I could. The noble Earl should not try to encourage me
1884
along these lines. In the other place there was a process whereby the chairman could say, "We have discussed the clause enough on the amendments and I will not allow a debate on 'Clause stand part'." But this is a different place with different rules and much freer; and from that point of view I think far better.
He says that this is a little amendment, a little section. It is perhaps a line and a half; but the implications of it are far from little. They are quite clear-cut. If the reserve power that the Secretary of State has to limit rents is repealed that obviously means that that long stop that the Secretary of State has against some local authority that is acting unreasonably is gone. As I recollect, the local authority used, by order, to say that the rent increase will be so much on average and that any single house rent shall not be increased by a certain amount more. I want the Government to make it clear to the local authority what is in front of them. The tenants have a right to know․and the right to know that the Government now want increases in rents and are not prepared to stop those increases or play any part in them. It is all very well to say that you can trust the local authorities. He himself during the course of the Bill spoke of "unscrupulous local authorities". The words are his; not mine. I do not want to throw in his teeth all his occasional phrases about local authorities. Some local authorities have been unreasonable even in respect of rents․whether too low or too high. This was a wise power in relation to the reserve power to limit. I am not prepared to go into a debate about it. I want people to be clear about how misleading is this title of tenants' rights when it may lead to tenants' grievances in respect of the changes to be made by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lady SALTOUN: I am a little worried about subsection (2) of this clause. As I understand it, having checked Section 93 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, money received from the sale of council houses will go into the local

1885
authorities' general funds and can be spent as income on anything from new Rolls-Royces for convenors to Christmas decorations. Can the noble Earl say whether this is the case?
Several noble Lords: Yes.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lady was good enough to apprise me of her worry by letter. I am bound to say that in my way I had assumed that her worry was to do with the use made of receipts from council house sales; which is a very different matter from what she now talks about, which is the use to which is put any surplus from what we all hope is going to be the rising level of council house rents. They are two different matters, as I am sure the noble Lady will appreciate. So far as rents are concerned, I can do no more than to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when he said in effect․and I confirmed it․that subsection (2) of this particular clause lays down what a housing authority can do with the credit balance. It goes into its general fund under Section 93 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act and may be applied to any purpose that any money in that fund can be applied to. If the noble Lady is saying that any money that comes from housing and the housing revenue account (if there is a surplus) ought to be kept in some way in a special housing subdivision and devoted in some way to housing․and I am reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, shaking his head․then that is a simplistic view as far as revenue is concerned; and I would not share the noble Lady's concern about that.
If she wants me to go into capital receipts ․and I see that she nods․I am not happy that this is the moment to do so but I should be prepared to do it if that was what the Committee wanted. Perhaps I might say that, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is concerned, I have not invited him to make any intervention on this Bill at all. I merely suggested that if he wanted a debate on the merits of this particular clause then "Clause stand part" would be a better Motion on which to have a debate than a series of mini-debates taken on different subsections of the clause. If I may say so, the noble Lord can conduct the opposition to this particular Bill in any way he wants. It is not for me to tell
1886
him that. He is a past-master of the suggestio fats when he suggests that the Government "want rent increases", to use his words. The Government do not want anything of the sort. We want the local authorities to have freedom to carry out their operations within their discretion provided that they do it in a responsible way.
The law as it stands permits central Government to interfere with local authorities' decisions to increase rents and to prevent them doing so. This was introduced in 1975 and used only once in respect of a decision by Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council to increase rents in 1979. The then Secretary of State for Scotland ordered them to limit the increase; but the order was annulled a few weeks' later and after the election of last year, in May 1979 the new Secretary of State for Scotland took the view that a local authority was best able to determine its own rent policy within the disciplines that we have already been into and in particular Section 1(2) of the 1975 Act.
Because of the number of new houses which there are in Scotland, I think it is beyond question that there will be a move towards surpluses. That betokens a need for flexibility for the local authorities, if they think fit, to create surpluses in their housing revenue accounts and to use them for whatever purpose they consider necessary. This is an important provision at this particular point in time when overall resources are scarce. It could give the local authorities the possibility of raising additional resources for themselves, putting them to whatever purpose they think best, including if they wish, to new house building. That is the purpose of the clause. I suggest that it is a perfectly logical and worthy one.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I am grateful to the noble Earl for advising me that I can do what I like as to how we conduct the opposition on this Bill. If he looks at the clause, there are three separate points. The first is in relation to surplus, the second is in relation to how you use these surpluses and the third is in relation to rents. I cannot think of any clause in which it is more appropriate to amend each of the separate entities within it, and then, if necessary, debate "Clause stand part". I do not know

1887
what he complains about. I did not transgress in any way in respect of this. I made a reference as to how the surplus created under subsection (1) could be used. I said it could be used for the water trip. He confirmed that. It can be used for any purpose except the housing revenue account. Because of the amount that is there, that could have dictated the future rent policy. They would not need to raise the rents at all. They can make a surplus there. The whole or part of it may be made available for any purpose for which the general fund of the local authority is maintained. One does not want to build up an idle surplus on the housing revenue account. A surplus could be made and one can take it out and use it for other purposes.
I am very glad that the noble Earl has made it clear that what faces local authority tenants is an increase of rents. If they have any sense of fairness they will not use it to buy Rolls-Royces but to reduce the rates. That is what people would like to see. I am glad that the Liberal Party is concerned with that. So far as I am aware I cannot recollect any situation in which industry has refused to come to an area because of the rates. They know that there is a considerable reduction of rates in industrial areas in Scotland. In certain areas the proportion of the expenditure paid centrally goes up as high as 90 per cent. and beyond. They talk about independence in these areas; but they would not be able to get the national standards without the support of central authorities. That is another argument. I am not going to oppose the agreement of this clause.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Local authority home loan interest rates]:
8.54 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("declared") and insert ("approved").
The noble Lord said: The local authorities are being invited to increase their rates of interest on home loan charges. The position at the moment is that local authorities can consolidate their charges.
1888
Some of their debt charges were actually running out. In respect of pre-war housing they were over 40 years and at fairly low rates of interest. It means that local authorities at the present time can give home loans at about 2 per cent. below building society rates. They are generally dealing with people who have been turned down by building societies and who are considered to be a bad risk. It is very sensible in relation to this that they should be able to carry on with this.
The policy of the Government is to ensure that the local authorities shall increase their rates of interest at the behest of the Secretary of State and that they will be more or less on a par—it might well be more than that—with the building societies. It is rather tough luck. The Government are telling us in relation to the conditions for purchase and for loans that they are making it such that it is going to be easier for tenants to buy their houses. But we find that they are putting up the rate of interest compared with what it is now. This will apply to existing home loans which have nothing to do with the purchase of local authority houses but the purchase of private houses, many of which in the past were private tenanted properties. It is rather a pity that the Government see fit to do this.
I have had representations from Glasgow about this. They probably are subject to more demands for home loans than anywhere else because of the desperation of young people waiting to get a house from the local authority to rent. They purchase ancient flats in tenement properties. The building societies will not touch them and the local authorities come in and do a certain amount to help. But it means that it is going to be more expensive for the purchasers. The same will apply to the home loans which must be given under an earlier clause to those who purchase their local authority houses. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Before getting into this clause, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord if he is also speaking to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Yes.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am obliged.

1889
It is not acceptable to us that local authorities should always charge the locally determined rate—that is, the rate required to cover their borrowing costs in relation to the money which they use for lending—even when it is lower than the rate which building societies are charging. This is quite incompatible with the proper role of local authorities as lenders of last resort, and the whole purpose of Clause 30 as it stands is to ensure that local authorities do not lend at rates below those charged by building societies. This is extremely important in relation to council house sales, which will account for the bulk of local authority lending in future, because the public expenditure benefits of sales are significantly greater where they are privately financed than where they are financed by a local authority loan because the full capital benefit accrues to the authority more quickly.
The noble Lord asked whether authorities were being forced to increase interest rates. The answer in short is, Yes. The point of this clause is that people must be encouraged to make a genuine attempt to get private finance. Local authorities, as I have said before, should be the last resort so far as finance is concerned and above all should not compete with building societies.
If I could come back to the central purpose of Clause 30, it provides that local authorities shall no longer grant fixed interest loans rather than loans which permit the rate of interest to be adjusted, and that the rate to be charged at any time shall be either a rate based on building society rates or a rate based on the authority's own borrowing to finance its lending activities, whichever is higher. At present local authorities are often lending at rates several per cent. lower than building society rates. This has to be stopped. I hope that assists the noble Lord with his query.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It certainly does assist me. I think it is fine that a Government will stand and make absolutely clear to everyone that as a result of Government action they are going to make it more expensive for people to buy their houses. That is the gist of what the noble Earl said. He said that it is only fair to the building societies that we should not have this unfair competition.
1890
Remember the local authority is not making a loss out of this. It is in relation to the whole consolidated debt charges of the local authority. They have to cover themselves like everybody else. But they are able to do this because of the whole history of this. I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, telling us that some of the houses which may be sold may have been built in the year 1930, and that all the debt charges are gone.
It means that the local authority, with the consolidation of the whole position, are in a position, without making any loss, to give home loans at a cheaper rate, and the Government say, "This is wrong". Now the Minister says, "We have got to put them into the position that they are not undercutting the building societies". Surely we are in a different field altogether. We have tried, as Governments on both sides of the House, to interest the building societies in financing home loans in respect of properties that they would not touch. This is the kind of property I am concerned about—property in respect of which the home loans have been provided by local authorities. Indeed, it is implied in the earlier provisions of this Bill that the local authorities will not provide the money for the great majority of the council house purchases. But the tenant has to go through the form of it. He has to apply and has to be turned down. Then he goes to the local authority and the local authority must accommodate him.
With due respect, there is not an element of competition and fair charging there, when one has the discretion to say, "No", and the other has no discretion at all. The local authority has got to give a loan, as the Bill stands at the present time. We are dealing here with the poorer section of the owner-occupying market. During the course of this Bill, when we discussed the price of the house, when we discussed the discount, when we discussed the loan, the Minister said that this must be there, that must be there and the other thing must be there because we really wanted to cut the thing down as much as possible and give a real incentive to buy. Then he throws all these arguments aside and says that the local authorities must put up their interest charge.

1891
The interest rate is one of the most vital things in respect of the decision to buy or not to buy. I do not think he is right in his comparison about the building societies and the local authorities. I know that he would like to have the building societies come into this field in a big way, because that is the way in which the local authorities will get a capital sum of money in their hands. But if he looks again at what he himself has provided—the majority of these are loans where local authorities are compelled to sell houses, and sell them at rates that they have no say in and grant loans for them—he will see that it is going to be the local authority in most cases. This is one of the assumptions, in that financial paper of the Department of the Environment, and it is quite wrong.
All the local authority is going to do in these circumstances is exchange a rent for an interest payment. Notionally it is going to provide the money to the tenant to buy the local authority house. I am afraid this is how it is going to turn out. If the Minister really wants the thing to go ahead and if he wants it to be a success, he should be careful about interest rates. Interest rates at present, and interest rates in the future, which have nothing to do with the purchase of local authority houses, are equally going to be affected, and this is where we come to the great pretensions of the Government that they want to see the maximum amount of owner-occupation. The interest rate is the one thing that presently is stifling owner-occupation and is the burden under which people who have entered into the purchase of houses are struggling. This has meretricious attractions in relation to the fair competition aspect of it, but I do not think competition is really relevant here when it is a field in which, generally speaking, the building societies are not presently interested.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I just want to correct the noble Lord on one or two of his more extravagant assertions and assumptions, at the risk of precipitating another stream. If one concedes, as I think the noble Lord does, that local authorities are to be lenders of last resort it then follows that one cannot give vent to that policy if in fact they are often lending at rates several per cent. lower than the building society rates. That follows
1892
as surely as night follows day. Therefore the purpose of this legislation is not to provide a more difficult method of funding house buying but merely to channel the would-be buyers in the right direction.
The noble Lord makes all sorts of assumptions as to what he considers the financing role of the local authorities is going to be. If I may say so, I do not think he has the facts which would warrant those assumptions. I can tell him that 50 per cent. of the sales in this area in the last 12 months were financed by sources other than local authorities, and 25 per cent. of lenders to building societies are, in fact, council tenants. If one takes those two statistics—and I do not make any more of them than this—it shows, as I suggest, that what I have been saying is approximately right; that a large quantity of these sales will be financed by the building societies and a large amount of money from building societies will represent the savings of the council tenants. It is no more and no less than that, and I do not think I can take it any further.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Because people are lenders to building societies it does not mean that they will become borrowers from them or that the building societies will accept them as borrowers. What they look at, of course, is the property, which is their safeguard; it is there. What the Minister is saying comes to this—that it is only the very best of houses that are going to be sold and in respect of which the building societies are going to enter the field. He knows as well as I do that there are a great many local authority houses that the building societies just will not touch.
Of course, without any advice against it from them, they will allow people to lift their savings and use them as part of the purchase, but I think that over a period we will find that more and more it will be the local authorities themselves who will come into the lending field as far as loans for the purchase of local authority houses are concerned. That is the whole implication of everything that has gone on, and indeed in the debates in the Committee in another place. We have got it clear just exactly what I wanted from the Minister, that they are going to compel the local authorities to

1893
increase their interest charges on home loans. So long as people know what the Government are doing, then I am satisfied. They will know the implications of the Bill and it will be clearer in their minds as to whether it will be desirable and advisable to go ahead with a purchase. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
9.9 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
Page 32, line 11, leave out from ("Notwithstanding") to ("the") and insert ("anything contained in subsections (1) to (8) above, but subject to subsections (11) and (12) below,")
Page 32, line 22, at end insert—
("(11) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an islands or district council may, where the conditions set out in subsection (12) below are satisfied, give assistance to a person acquiring a house in need of repair or improvement by making provision for waiving or reducing, for a period ending not later than five years after the date of an advance of money of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above or of the granting of a security under an arrangement of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, the interest payable on the sum advanced or remaining outstanding under the security, as the case may be.
(12) The conditions mentioned in subsection (11) above are that—

(a) the assistance is given in accordance with a scheme which has been approved by the Secretary of State or which conforms with such requirements as may be specified by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument with the consent of the Treasury; and

(b) the person acquiring the house has entered into an agreement with the local authority to carry out, within a period specified in the agreement, works of repair or improvement therein specified.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 101 and 102. The noble Lord, who takes every opportunity of making his political points and publicising what he thinks are the intentions of the Government, I have no doubt will not hesitate to publish this one too, because the effect of these amendments is going to be to allow local authorities to charge no interest in certain circumstances. That will no doubt bring joy to the noble Lord's heart.
These amendments, of which Amendment No. 102 is the principal, provide for the Secretary of State to allow local authorities to charge low interest or to waive interest for up to five years where they are granting a mortgage for the purchase of a house in need of repairs or improvements. The provision is aimed at "homesteading" arrangements, where purchasers, often young people with limited resources, are enabled to buy houses in need of considerable improvement on favourable terms on the understanding that they will carry out the work necessary to bring the house up to standard. The favourable terms have, in some schemes adopted in England, taken the form of reduced or waived interest payments in the early years of the mortgage and it is considered desirable that this sort of arrangement should be able to continue at the Secretary of State's discretion. These amendments are necessary to allow this because Clause 30, as it stands, prescribes that certain interest rates must be charged on all home loans granted by islands and district councils.
There has, as far as I am aware, been no attempt by Scottish local authorities to undertake "homesteading" on any significant scale. However, I understand that Glasgow District Council are considering a homesteading scheme and that among the sources of experience which they are examining is the Greater London Council's homesteading scheme. Under the GLC scheme, a house or flat in poor condition, needing a minimum of £2,000 spent on repairs and improvements and having been empty for at least two months, is bought by a purchaser who undertakes to put it into good repair and decorative order during a specified period of no more than three years, during which period payments of interest on the GLC mortgage are waived and repayments of capital deferred. Such schemes are designed for people who are willing to put time and money into improving a rundown property and who would not normally be able to afford the combined cost of mortgage repayments and repair and improvement costs.
Amendment No. 102 will enable the Secretary of State to approve individual schemes submitted by local authorities but he may, if it appears appropriate,

1895
issue an order with the consent of the Treasury, on the basis of which local authorities could proceed without the need for individual approval. Among the considerations which the Secretary of State will have in mind either in deciding individual cases, or in preparing an order, will be: first, that the dwelling concerned is in need of significant improvement or repair; secondly, that the purchaser enters into an agreement with the authority to carry out specified works within a period specified in the agreement; thirdly, that the extent to which interest is reduced or waived would depend—within the maximum five years permitted by the amendment—upon the inducement needed in the particular circumstances of the scheme.
I must assure noble Lords that this amendment does not herald a change in the Government's policy on local authority mortgage interest rates. I maintain that local authorities should lend only in the last resort. Only in the exceptional circumstances which I have described, therefore, should borrowers be able to obtain mortgages from the local authority at more favourable rates than those who borrow from building societies; and only in such circumstances should a local authority be able to lend money for house purchase at a rate which is below normal mortgage rates. The general principles remain as set out in Clause 30. I beg to move.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: This is a splendid amendment and it certainly has my full support. It is in line with the kind of thing that we started way back in the year 1949, when the Labour Government introduced the improvement grant scheme. Although we hoped that it would be taken up by owners of tenemented property, to help stop the slide into slumdom that was then in evidence, we were disappointed by the results. We discovered that it was owner-occupiers who became interested and abused this scheme. That scheme was developed and has spawned other aspects of repair grants and standard amenities, and this is something similar which will be available to owner-occupiers. Admittedly, it is very limited. First, get your house and then get your agreement with the local authority.
1896
I welcome the information that Glasgow Corporation have been looking at this scheme, and I hope that it will be prepared to use it. I am glad that the Government have taken the cautious step, in the first instance, of seeking approval of individual cases, but have also taken power to give a much wider discretion to local authorities. I think that the Government are to be congratulated on this new venture.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Local authority indemnities for building societies, etc.]:
9.16 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 33, line 20, leave out ("14") and insert ("15").
The noble Lord said: It might be to the convenience of the Committee if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 together. Both amendments concern insertions into the legislation relating to building societies of a provision enabling them to accept indemnities which are offered by local authorities under Clause 31. Amendment No. 103 is a purely drafting amendment. At present, both this Bill and the Housing Bill for England and Wales propose the insertion of a new paragraph 14 into Schedule 3 of the Building Societies Act 1962. One of us must give up the number 14 and settle for the number 15, and this is all that Amendment No. 103 does.
Amendment No. 104 makes identical insertions into the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 to those already made by Clause 31(7) into the Building Societies Act 1962, in order to allow building societies which are registered in Northern Ireland, but operating partly in Scotland, to accept indemnities from Scottish local authorities. These are fairly simple amendments. I beg to move.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble Lord says that they are simple, but where a local authority undertakes to indemnify a building society in respect of,
"(a) the whole or part of any outstanding indebtedness of a borrower; and
(b) the loss or expense to the building society resulting from the failure of the borrower duly to perform any obligation",

1897
some explanation is required as to who the borrower is and the circumstances involved.
We have just heard that we must establish a relationship which does not put the building societies at a disadvantage. Here we have local authorities indemnifying building societies against the default of borrowers. How does this tie up with the borrowings by would-be purchasers who are tenants of local authority houses? This is a very important and serious amendment from the point of view of local authorities, who are taking over responsibility for the debts and failures of somebody else, which would normally fall on building societies. There may be some simple explanation, but, on the face of it, it is not a simple amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: If I go up to Scotland—because we shall all be unemployed in South Wales—with no money at all, but am a fairly honest individual, and I am told that I can be indemnified in. Glasgow, because on shipbuilding or armaments I shall get a job, is my integrity at stake? Am I guaranteed or must there be an agreement between the leaders of the local authority and the building society that Davies is honest? Shall I have to sign some kind of document, or will they take me on trust and say: "He is a good guy and he will be all right"? Will the noble Lord explain that to me?—because up to now these are only words.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am sure we would always take the noble Lord on trust. Taffy may be a Welshman, but the second half of the old saw would never apply in that case. Powers are at present available to local authorities under Section 50(1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 to guarantee repayment of advances, and interest thereon, in respect of particular home loans granted by building societies. These powers enable a local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to guarantee part or all of a home loan. Under Section 50(2) of the 1968 Act, the Secretary of State may agree to contribute towards losses incurred by a building society where a local authority guarantee relates to the part of a home loan which is in excess of what the building society would have been prepared to
1898
advance without the guarantee, so long as the losses incurred are to be shared equally by the building society, the local authority and the Secretary of State.
The purpose of this provision is to encourage building societies to lend to lower wage-earners. No use at all has been made of the existing powers in Scotland, mainly because the guarantees available are considered by building societies to be inferior to the commercial guarantees available from insurance companies, which provide also for recovery of a building society's incidental costs and which are obtainable very quickly. This clause replaces these powers and extends them to the Housing Corporation. It will enable local authorities to indemnify a building society against incidental losses resulting from a borrower's default as well as repayment of the whole or part of a borrower's outstanding debt. In line with the commercial guarantee procedures, local authorities and the Housing Corporation will be enabled in terms of an agreement with a building society and borrower to take over the building society's rights and liabilities in relation to a home loan. I hope that this reasonably succinctly gives the purpose and scope of the clause, and the amendments which my noble friend moved will slot into place.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. The information I was looking for was to confirm what I had already learned from my own experience as Secretary of State, and my continuing interest in the subject was that we had hoped to interest the building societies in the way of making loans available to people for the properties that were less desirable. Sadly, although we have offered that inducement, which was really a sharing of the loss, in fact one-third of it only going to the building society, they have not to any extent—in fact not at all—come into this particular field, although I remember it being announced that a sum of money was being made available by the Government to meet this.
I should like to think that even with this they would come in, but, as I said before, I feel that the bulk of the home loans are going to be provided—as they might as well be considering the nature of this indemnity—by the local authorities. We have tried and tried to interest them

1899
in this, to get them to support home loans for those who are less well-off. The fact is that the less well-off are trying to buy, and can only buy, lesser properties.
I at one time was opposed to Glasgow providing monies in respect of the purchase of some of these houses, because we had the situation where young people in their desperation were becoming owneroccupiers in tenement flats, some of them in houses that their parents were glad to be rehoused out of. Then, once in, of course they seek to get the advantages of improvement grants and the rest of it. You cannot blame them for the straits they get into; but the sad thing is that there is no decent rented accommodation apart from local authority accommodation, which is strictly limited and for which there is a long waiting list. It is one of the sad stories about Scottish housing. We have had experience of that. I had hoped that this might attract them. Unless building societies can give to local authorities a sum of money, it will be a very considerable drag upon local authority finances rather than the bonanza which the Government hopefully made an assumption about when they produced their memorandum.
I am not going to object to this, but I am glad that I have had an explanation. One thing which local authorities know about home loans is that one in five—a high percentage—of those who have had home loans, supported by local authorities, have defaulted. It may have been because of unemployment and other tragedies. People may have bitten off far more, financially, than they could chew. We have to appreciate this kind of problem when we are making assumptions about what will happen under this Act of Parliament. We have to be realistic and not spread inflated stories, one way or the other, about the outcome. Many of us do not know—and I am perfectly sure the Government do not know—what the consequences will be for people who embark upon home loans. At a later stage of the Bill I have put down one or two amendments to try to safeguard people from defaulting when an agreement has been made and when the local authority would need to come to the rescue of the building society. I am prepared to leave the matter there and not to oppose the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 33, line 24, at end insert—
("(8) Schedule 3 to the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph 3(2)(c) after "Scotland" insert "section 31 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980,"; and

(b) at the end add the following paragraph—

"15. An agreement under section 31 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (local authority indemnities for building societies, etc.)"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Short tenancies]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
9.27 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 34, line 39, after ("and") insert (", notwithstanding the provisions of section 44(1) and (4) of the 1971 Act,").
The noble Lord said: This is another technical amendment, pace the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. However, I assure him that it is. This amendment removes any doubt that there may be as to what the effective date will be in cases where the landlord applies within the statutory period of 14 days' grace which is allowed by subsection (1)(e)(ii) for the rent specified in the certificate of fair rent to be registered. The position at the moment is uncertain. The latter part of paragraph (ii) provides that the registered rent shall take effect from the commencement of the tenancy. This position may be contrasted with the new Section 44 of the 1971 Act, which Clause 46 inserts into that Act. In other words, the earliest date from which the new registered rent may be recovered is the date when the rent officer registers that rent.
This process is clearly inconsistent with Clause 34(1)(e)(ii), and subsection (2) in the case of a landlord who takes advantage of the 14 days' grace. The proviso which the amendment proposes should be inserted in subsection (2) makes it clear that in such circumstances the

1901
registered rent shall be payable from the start of a tenancy, notwithstanding the general rule in the new Section 44(1) that the effective date is to be the date when the rent officer registers the rent or the date when the rent assessment committee make their decision. It is technical. Nevertheless, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Effect of tenancy being short tenancy]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 35, line 17, leave out ("(b)").
The noble Earl said: The broad purpose of Clause 35 is to ensure that if a tenant under a short tenancy either assigns his tenancy or grants a sub-tenancy, he cannot thereby prevent the landlord from recovering possession at the end of the short tenancy. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the general right to a possession order conferred upon landlords of short tenancies is subject to both of the circumstances specified in subsection (5). These circumstances are that if the tenant dies, any statutory successor who could succeed to the tenancy under the normal transmission rules applicable to all protected tenancies shall be entitled to remain in possession until the end of the period of the let. Similarly a lawful sub-tenant can remain in possession until the end of the contractual letting even although the head short tenancy is terminated before that date. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Conditions applying to landlord's right to recovery of possession]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 112:
1902
Page 36, line 11, leave out ("the expiry of a") and insert ("not later than 3 months after the expiry of any").
The noble Earl said: If I may, I will move Amendment No. 112 and speak to Amendment No. 115 at the same time. The reason that I say this is that the two amendments hang together and are designed to remove any ambiguity there might otherwise be in the present drafting. Our intention is to enable short tenancies to be continued for further periods of 12 months in cases where the landlord takes no steps, by the service of a Case 11D notice for which subsection (2) provides, to terminate the tenancy either before the expiry of the contractual period or within the period of three months immediately following that period. In such a case at the moment subsection (4) provides that the tenancy shall be renewed for a further period of 12 months beginning with the expiry of the original tenancy. The amendment which I urge should be made to subsections (2) and (4) has the effect of continuing the tenancy for successive periods of 12 months on each occasion that the landlord fails to serve notice within the prescribed time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 36, line 16, leave out ("the date of").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 36, line 42, at end insert ("or with the expiry of any period of 12 months for which the tenancy is continued under this subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Limits on rent increases]:
9.35 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 37, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the limits on rent increases. It is

1903
a bit of a misnomer, because I doubt very much whether there will be any limits on the increases. Whereas before we had the noble Lord telling us why the Secretary of State would not intervene in respect of increases of rents in the local government sector, we find a very different position here. I understand it, although you would not from the two lines:
"Subject to subsection (4) below, sections 7 to 9 of the 1975 Act and Schedule 2 to that Act are repealed".
Nobody knows what that means, but I am perfectly sure the noble Earl is going to explain it to us and then tell us, "Do not worry. We are wiping out the question of phasing of rents "—which was not done in England by the way— "but the Secretary of State is going to lay down a maximum amount by which the total rent payable under a tenancy may be raised in any period of 12 months". Now we are in the private sector, by the way; it is to limit the total amount by which a regulated tenancy registered rent may be raised, and "restrict the total additional rental income which may be recovered by a landlord under such a tenancy in any period of 12 months". So there is very considerable restriction here, but it does mean there are going to be immediate increases in rent rather than the phased increases in rent. Bearing in mind that when some of these houses have been brought into regulated tenancy in the past, by the removal of the old controls, in some areas of Glasgow the rents have gone up by a factor of more than 10, I think it is right that the tenants should know exactly what is in front of them now in relation to future increases. I believe at the present time the increase is limited to somewhere about £78 a year. We have not been told, certainly not in another place; I have seen it quoted in a document, not an official document, as to what they are likely to be, but I think it would be fine if the noble Earl could tell your Lordships' House just exactly what the new maximum increase in respect of these tenancies is going to be in any one year. That is the information I want, and I am absolutely sure the noble Earl will be fairly frank with us in respect of what is going to be done. He will justify the fact that we are doing things differently in Scotland because circumstances are different; I am not terribly interested in
1904
that argument. It is the facts I want to know. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, we now come effectively to the phasing amendment, if I may so call it. As the noble Lord was careful to say, after he very nearly misled your Lordships, we have passed now from the public into the private sector. It is extremely important to emphasise this, because I want to say at the beginning that nothing in the provisions of this Part of the Bill are going to affect in any way the rights of the tenants so far as the three year period is concerned, and it is very important.
I should also explain, because there has been some inquiry in some quarters, why the Scottish proposals differ from those contained in the Housing Bill. To take the second point first, which is of a more general nature, the distinction between the proposals in this Bill and the Housing Bill is that, while Clause 37 in its present form abolishes phasing as such for Scotland, the Housing Bill reduces the number of phases from three to two in England and Wales, so that the full fair rent is payable a year after registration. Not for the first time, I have explained that in Scotland we sometimes prefer our own way of doing things, and I make no apology for saying this in relation to this particular clause.
We have thought it appropriate to abolish phasing in its present form because there is no reason in logic why the landlord should not receive immediately the full fair rent which is based on the state and so on of the property at the date of determination. I might mention in passing that the Rent Act 1965, which set up the fair rents machinery, made no provision for phasing of rent increases on re-registration. The new fair rent became payable in full right away. However, the Government fully recognise that a return to this position could create problems for tenants who had become accustomed, through phasing, to being cushioned from sudden, sharp increases in rent. We appreciate that and the Bill recognises that tenants have become accustomed to having a period of time, following an increase in rent, to make the necessary adjustments to their personal budgets.
So far as England and Wales are concerned, the Housing Bill tackles the problem by continuing phasing, but

1905
reducing the period over which the increase is phased from three to two years. However, we believe that a more logical and equitable manner of balancing the conflicting interests of landlord and tenant is to replace the present system of phasing with an order making power for the Secretary of State to specify the maximum increase that is permissible in any one year.
The reason why we take that view is quite simple: the only argument against the full fair rent being paid immediately is the possible hardship that it could cause the tenant, particularly where the increase is a large one. We have dealt with that problem by restricting, by order, the maximum increase that can be recovered in any one year and the Secretary of State can adjust that, in order to ensure fairness to both parties, in the light of prevailing economic circumstances.
During the Committee stage of this Bill in the other place an indication was given of the Government's current thinking on what level of annual increase might initially be prescribed by order. We have in mind that the order shall prescribe an annual maximum of £104 or 25 per cent. of the existing rent, whichever is the greater. That bears favourable comparison with the present annual maximum of £78 fixed five years ago by the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act of that year.
Finally, I should emphasise that these new annual maxima will only take effect from the next re-registration of a fair rent. In other words, phasing under the existing arrangements will run its full course. I trust, therefore, that this is a plan which will commend itself to your Lordships on the basis that we are making a start in getting the Scottish rent control system on a more equitable basis.
I assure your Lordships that in general terms the overall effect of the two new systems in Scotland and England will work out roughly the same. For example, we are retaining in Scotland the three-year registration period, which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, and that pegs the rent for that period. However, in England the period is reduced to two years, which will mean more frequent increases. So, balancing the one with the other, the differences are not likely to be great or one-sided and our system
1906
in Scotland will be more firmly-based in logic and more flexible in operation.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It is clear that in both cases there will be very considerable increases in rents. Of course we shall see the order when it eventually comes, but the Minister has told us that in the first year following the completion of the present registration period of three years—whenever that may be—in respect of any particular rent the maximum will be £104. Of course there will he other years to come after that. He said that there would be more or less the equivalent of a 25 per cent. increase. I think that the present maximum over the period is £78. So there will be a very considerable increase.
I wish to thank the noble Lord for his frankness and for the information which he has given us. Although he may talk about fairness in one way or another, when he appreciates that many of these tenants have already had a tremendous increase in rents, that many of them believe that they have been over-rented, despite the existence of the rent officer and the rent assessment committees—some of which we could discuss at length later on —he must realise that it will be a very considerable shock to them. So here we have it both in the public sector and the private sector. The one thing we can be sure of in Scotland is higher increases in rents than we have ever known before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.46 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 37, line 26, leave out from ("of") to ("not") in line 27 and insert ("subsection (2) above" rent "and" rental income "do").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which is necessary to achieve consistency of treatment between what is "rent" in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and "rental income" in paragraph (b). At the moment the cost of providing services is only specifically excluded from the calculation of the restriction on the total additional rental income that a landlord may recover in the relevant period of 12 months. The amendment makes it clear that in cases where paragraph (b) does not apply the service element

1907
in "rent" recoverable in terms of paragraph (a) is also to be exempt from the limit on the maximum annual increase in rent for which that paragraph provides. This will mean that the cost of providing services—which represent a direct cash outlay on the part of the landlord—will be recoverable in full in the same way as it is exempt from the current phasing limits. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 c. 65
.—(1) The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 15 (protection of tenure of certain premises), after subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
"(1A) This section does not apply in relation to any tenancy entered into after the commencement of section 53 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.".
(3) In section 16 (protection of tenure of premises not falling under section 15)—

(i) in subsection (2)(c) the words from "and" to the end are repealed;

(ii) for subsections (3) to (8) substitute the following subsections—

"(3) The rent for any rental period (that is to say, a period in respect of which an instalment of rent falls to be paid) shall be the amount payable for the last rental period before the end of the tenancy, but subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with section 22 or 23 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (adjustment, with respect to rates, services and furniture, of recoverable rent for statutory periods before registration).
(4) Subsection (3) above has effect subject to any agreement between the parties for the payment of a lower rent; and where a lower rent is agreed it shall not be increased in accordance with the said section 22 or 23 but may, notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, be increased by agreement in writing between the parties up to an amount not exceeding the amount of rent provided for in subsection (3) above.".
(4) In section 17(2)(b) (provisions supplementary to section 16 where the accommodation is shared other than with the landlord) for "(5) to (8)" substitute "(3) and (4)".
(5) In section 18(2) (protection of tenure in connection with employment, under a licence or a rent-free letting) for "(5) to (8)" substitute "(3) and (4)".
(6) Section 19(5) (limitation on application of Rent Acts—heritable secutities) is repealed.").
The noble Earl said: This new clause amends the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 to take account of changes to the Rent Acts in the current Bill. As noble Lords will remember from consideration of the comparable provisions in the Housing Bill, the 1951 Act is designed to protect in a variety of ways many people who are still liable to be called up in an emergency and might not have the opportunity to get their legal affairs in order before call-up. So far as privately rented property is concerned the provisions in the Act mean that families of reservists who would not otherwise be covered by the Rent Acts, get analogous protection during the reservist's spell of duty.
Broadly speaking, the changes proposed for Section 15 of the 1951 Act have the effect of bringing the protection available to reservists under Section 15—that section applies to Part VII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to lettings by a resident landlord, but where there is no Part VII contract—into line with the protection to be available to Part VII contract holders generally after the commencement of Clause 53 of the Bill.
The amendments made to Section 16 are consequential upon the conversion, under Clause 44, of all remaining controlled tenancies to rent regulation and the repeal of Part V of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971. The effect on reservists' tenancies is largely unchanged: the new subsection (3) of Section 16 limits the rent to the last contractual rent, plus any increases in respect of rates, furniture or services; and the new subsection (4) enables less than the full contractual rent to be charged if that is provided for in a separate agreement between the parties. The remaining subsections are technical in nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.50 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 119:

1909
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to Crown tenants of Crown Estate Commissioners etc.
.—(l) Section 4 of the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) before"a tenancy" insert "Subject to subsection (3) below"; and

(ii) the words or of the Duchy of Lancaster; or to the Duchy of Cornwall" are repealed;

(b) after subsection (2) add a new sub-section

"(3) An interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown shall not prevent a tenancy from being a protected tenancy or a person from being a statutory tenant if the interest is under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners.".
(2) Section 6(3) of the 1971 Act shall be amended by inserting after paragraph (a) a new paragraph—
"(aa) in relation to any dwelling-house of which a tenancy granted before the commencement of section (Extension of Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to Crown tenants of Crown Estate Commissioners etc.) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 becomes, or would but for its low rent become, a protected tenancy by virtue of that section, means the date of commencement of that section.".
(3) Section 85 of the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) before "This Part" insert "subject to subsection (3A) below"; and

(ii) in paragraph (a) the words "or of the Duchy of Lancaster or to the Duchy of Cornwall" are repealed;

(b) after subsection (3) insert a new sub-section—

"(3A) An interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown shall not prevent this Part of this Act from applying to a contract if the interest is under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners.".
(4) Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in Case 5 after "1965" insert "or, in the case of a tenancy which became a regulated tenancy by virtue of section (Extension of Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to Crown tenants of Crown Estate Commissioners etc.) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, after the commencement of that section"; and

(b) in Part III, in paragraph 2 at the end add a new paragraph—

"(aaa) in the case of a tenancy which becomes a regulated tenancy by virtue of section (Extension of Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to Crown tenants of Crown Estate Commissioners etc.) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act
1910
1980, the relevant date means the date falling six months after the passing of that Act; and".
(5) Section 134 of the 1971 Act shall be amended by adding the following new paragraphs—

"3. Where an interest belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, for the purposes of this Act the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall be deemed to be the owner of the interest.

4. Where an interest belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of the Duchy of Cornwall shall be deemed to be the owner of the interest.".")

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this new clause is to amend the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 so that it applies to tenants of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Noble Lords may remember discussing and approving on 3rd July the parallel provision in the Housing Bill. The new clause mirrors those provisions which are relevant to Scottish circumstances; for example, the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 do not apply to Scotland so that it is unnecessary to repeat the changes made to these Acts by the Housing Bill. Similarly, we have been advised by the Crown Estate Commissioners that it is unnecessary to amend the provisions in the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 which relate to the charging of premiums because the special circumstances which led to changes being made by the Housing Bill to the provisions for premiums in the Rent Act 1977 do not apply in Scotland.
I understand that there are approximately 140 tenancies in Scotland that are managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners on behalf of the Crown and these are largely in the rural areas of the North-East and the South-West. These properties are let at rents agreed with the rent officer as fair. When vacant possession is secured the future of the dwellings is considered in estate management terms and, if not required, they are sold off. Although neither of the Duchies appear to own residential property in Scotland the new clause ensures that should either grant a residential tenancy in future it will be subject to the Rent Acts.
Tenants who are brought within the Rent Acts by this clause will have full security of tenure and be subject to the fair rents system. It has been the practice in the past, I understand, to apply the

1911
Rent Acts administratively to such tenants; now the tenants will for the first time have statutory entitlement to their protection. I beg to move.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I do not think that anyone would quarrel with the new clause here. It is interesting to see the sidelines into which these new clauses take us. I should have liked to embark on the activities of the Crown Commissioners in Scotland. I had a certain measure of responsibility at one time. The only quibble I would have with the noble Earl is when he says that they have so many properties involved mainly in certain parts of the country. I was waiting for him to mention Edinburgh, becaue they have been active in respect of properties in Edinburgh as well. They may get beneficial help, if protection is needed from the Rent Acts, under the new clause. Now is not the time to embark upon the activities of the Crown Commissioners in this respect, and I certainly welcome the new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Prohibition of eviction without due process of law to apply to Part VII contracts]:
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Amendment of sections 1 and 86 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971):
9.53 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 39, line 9, after ("roll") insert ("on or").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. At the moment the Rent Acts apply to tenancies of dwelling-houses the rateable value of which did not exceed £200 on 23rd March 1965 in respect of existing dwellings or the date when the entry is first made in the valuation roll in all other cases. As presently worded the new section (1A) provides that in respect of dwellings whose rateable value is first entered on the valuation roll after 1st April 1978 the Secretary of State may make an order increasing the present limit of £200 to whatever limit he thinks appropriate. But since the effective date of the current valuation rolls is 1st April, dwellings whose rateable value was between the present limit of £200 and any new limit and in respect of which the entry was made on 1st April, would not be subject to the Rent Acts. The amendment seeks to plug this gap of one day in the Rent Act cover. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Conversion of all remaining controlled tenancies]:
9.55 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 40, line 2, at end insert (" certified by the local housing authority as meeting the tolerable standard ").
The noble Lord said: There was a time when there would have been furious battles over the subject raised by this amendment, but I have no desire to rouse the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at this time because I know exactly how he would feel if I had proceeded to debate the whole issue. We are here discussing a relic of the past, the position of remaining controlled tenancies. There are not all that many of them, in terms of thousands anyway, and we must appreciate exactly the kind of houses we are discussing. They are properties with a very low rateable value indeed, and probably even lower rents. We have had a few valuations of these properties since they were first pinpointed, when we started releasing from control a great number of houses, but these houses have never been released. The Government sought to do something much more drastic in 1971, but then changed their mind, or Parliament changed it for them, and I am sure they would like to have done something more later on.
The houses about which we are talking are some of the oldest in Scotland, mostly in Glasgow. I remember saying some years ago in another place that people should be pretty well paid to live in them, and sadly that is true. It may be that the existence of the rent restriction Acts had something to do with it, but when one remembers that it was thought desirable not to remove these, then there must have been some justification for that. In any event, even if they could have got not just a 25 per cent. but a 50 per cent. increase in rents, they could not have looked at the possibility of the kind of repairs that need to be done to these houses; rather than abolition, I would look to demolition because that is really the only way out. I have not objected to the conversion of all remaining co controlled tenancies, but knowing the nature of the houses involved, I have suggested that we insert:
1914
"certified by the local housing authority as meeting the tolerable standard".
We must keep an eye on what happens to these houses, and the insertion of these words might be one way of achieving the purpose, and I suggest we should give them a certain time to reach that tolerable standard, if they possibly can reach it; and that is why I suggest in the next Amendment, No. 124—and, with the permission of the Committee, that can be discussed at the same time—that it should be delayed until 1st January 1984. There is nothing ulterior in this, just trying to get to grips with the situation. I do not think it will help to any great extent just to convert these controlled tenancies into registered tenancies.
The people will be in a very difficult position. The houses are old and, generally speaking, the people occupying them are old, too. One finds this in Scotland; the older people live in the older houses. Many of them are quite unwilling to move. We discovered that when we tried to clear places such as Anderston. One stubborn person could delay us for quite a long time because he owned a property there and did not want to move until he obtained complete satisfaction. Indeed, the development was held up for a year. Local authorities in a position like that are not without compassion. The delay meant that in regard to Anderston people had to wait and wait before we could get the area cleared.
Properties such as these are in a rather sad state, but if possible we want to get them up to a tolerable standard, though in fact the tolerable standard is not a very high standard. I think that it was following the 1967 report from the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee that this standard was introduced. It has been of some help in that money can be spent on houses by the Government and by local authorities in order to bring them up to a tolerable standard, which does not mean all that much in terms of the houses having a permanent life; they have a limited life. I suggest that we insert what is proposed in the amendment and give the local housing authority more or less a watching brief in regard to this matter. This is not an unreasonable amendment for the Government to accept, or at least to think about. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As the noble Lord has said, Amendment No. 123 would restrict the conversion of controlled tenancies to rent regulation to those which are certified by the local authority as meeting the tolerable standard. The only controlled tenancies still in existence are those with a rateable value of under £25 on 27th August 1972, where there has been no change of tenancy since before 6th July 1957. Dwellinghouses of such a low rateable value are, in the main, single rooms in tenement blocks, and it is unlikely that many of them currently meet the tolerable standard, or indeed that they could be made to meet that standard, given the limitation of space.
That apart, the Government see no justification for retaining alongside a rent registration system a controlled rent system covering only some 3,000 tenants paying only some £10 to £12 per annum. Such rental levels provide a landlord with no margin to insure the property or carry out repairs; far less do they provide him with an income. For that reason we are proposing in Clause 44 to bring all controlled tenancies under the umbrella of the rent registration system. I do not for one moment conceal that the registration of a fair rent will mean some increases in rent for most controlled tenants, and for the reasons that I have previously given I think that this is justified, if only to give the landlord the opportunity and incentive to maintain and improve his property. The limit on rent increases and the availability of rent allowance will mitigate the effects for the tenant.
However, I am very much aware that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, the tenants of these controlled tenancies are for the most part elderly, are often widows or widowers, and are of limited means. For that reason I am happy to repeat the assurances given by my right honourable friend in another place that these tenants will be dealt with by the rent officer with sympathy and understanding. Indeed, that is the norm for the rent officer service; and I should perhaps say with especial sympathy and understanding. The implications of the registration of a fair rent will be carefully explained. The explanation will include the maximum increase in rent to which they will be subject, and any financial
1916
assistance to which they may be entitled in the form of rent allowance and so on. For those reasons I am unable to accept Amendment No. 123, which would be impossibly restrictive. Amendment No. 124 would postpone the date of conversion to rent registration until 1st January 1984. In my view, the conversion is long overdue and no good will be served by postponing it for another three years.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Of course, the noble Earl appreciates that when I was talking earlier about home loans and the kind of property that young people were buying their way into to become owner-occupiers, much of it was this kind of property, because when it became vacant there was no question of re-letting it. There is no doubt at all about it, that property owners in Glasgow were delighted to be able to sell it, and sell it they did. It is a sad position. I do not think for a minute that if they get an increase of another £1 a week in rent they are going to spend a penny of it on repairs and maintenance. What can you do with these ancient properties in Glasgow—over 100 years old, some of them—in the situation that I mentioned in the discussion on an earlier amendment, where you go up the close and on each level there is the landing in the middle and the room and kitchen on each side? They have been there for a hundred years without any facilities. They do not reach any standard at all; and it is sad to think that, in this day and age, and after all the efforts made by all sorts of Governments to improve things, in many cases they are still there.
So far as concerns introducing the fair rent system and registering the rent, the people who are in these houses are the last people in the world to be able to understand it, or even to be able to defend themselves in that way. There is many a time a letter from a property owner telling them about an increase in rent and they cannot understand it. They will not know their rights, they will not understand their rights; and I think local community counsellors or local welfare officers will need to be very busy in their jobs to make sure that these people understand what is going on.
But any increase in rent for them, of course, is going to be, probably, an

1917
increased demand on social security. I do not know whether the noble Earl appreciated that, that it will not necessarily be the tenants of these particular houses who will be called upon eventually to pay; it is going to be the state itself. I think what we want to do is to speed up the process whereby we get rid of these houses which have not reached a tolerable standard. That is ultimately the right way.
It is no good saying that special sympathy and understanding will be brought to bear by the rent officer. With all due respect, he is not allowed to do that. He has got to deal in facts and figures, and ease his position by bringing in his own experience and his own judgment. With all due respect, judgment and experience are not sympathy and understanding. It may be that in the way he deals with the people and in the way he talks to the people there will be sympathy and understanding; I am perfectly sure that is true. But when it comes to the activities of the rent officer and where someone is not satisfied, it is not likely to be the tenant who will appeal to the rent assessment committee; it is much more likely to be the property owner. This is all our experience of it; and when it comes before that committee then I am afraid the tenant has not got very much chance. He is not going to employ a surveyor or a lawyer to put his case; it is the property owner who is going to be involved there. This is one of the reasons why, in a later amendment, it will be seen that we change and help the rent assessment committee and the rent officer to a certain extent. But the dice is always loaded in respect of the tenant. It is loaded in respect of resources; it is loaded in respect of knowledge; it is loaded in respect of experience. That is all there and can be bought by the appealing property owner. I must thank the noble Earl for the explanation he has given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Determination of fair rent]:
10.10 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 125 and 126:
Page 40, line 33, leave out from ("section") to first ("to") in line 35.
Page 40, line 37, after ("to") insert ("apply their knowledge and experience of current rents of comparable property in the area, as well as having regard to").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 125 and 126. In introducing Amendment No. 125, I should like to explain first of all the purpose of the clause itself and then to deal with the effect of the particular amendment we have before us. The purpose of the clause is to free rent officers and rent assessment committees in Scotland from the inhibition they at present feel very strongly they are under, in that they cannot use their own judgment, in addition to any other evidence submitted, when determining a fair rent. The problem arises as a result of a judgment in the Court of Session in Albyn Properties v. Knox in 1977. In that decision, the Court of Session required the rent assessment committee to show:
"upon what proved or admitted fact their decision proceeded [and] what reasons they had in the light of the evidence for selecting the particular figures of rent for particular houses".
The effect of that judgment was, as I have said, to deny rent officers and rent assessment committees in Scotland the opportunity to use their own judgment, in addition to any other evidence submitted, when determining a fair rent. They could take into account only the actual evidence submitted to the rent assessment committee by the parties.
Your Lordships will appreciate that landlords regularly have both the means and the ability to produce substantial evidence of comparable rents that exist in the area. Tenants rarely have that same opportunity as a consequence of their lack of means, lack of expertise and general know-how or other obvious circumstances. That is why the original legislation in Section 42 of the 1971 Act made provision for the rent officer and the rent assessment committee to use their own experience and judgment. This sought to ensure that the odds were not weighted overwhelmingly against the tenant when evidence of comparable rents in the area was being considered. The purpose of Clause 45 is therefore simply to clarify and reaffirm the intentions of the original legislation. It has not been necessary to amend the comparable

1919
English legislation in the same way, due to the fact that the English courts have interpreted the legislation differently from the Scottish courts. The English courts have come down clearly in favour of what the original legislation intended and what the Government consider appropriate in this matter, and the only way in which we can harmonise practice both sides of the Border— which in this particular instance, I am sure, your Lordships will agree is highly desirable—is to amend the Scottish legislation on the lines proposed in Clause 45.
This point was fully argued in another place and I think it is fair to say that the Opposition were generally in favour of what the Government are trying to do in this matter. The actual wording of the new provision, however, has naturally exercised us greatly and we are anxious not to leave any loophole for further misinterpretation. Hence, Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and I think will more meaningfully convey what Clause 45 is out to achieve. My noble and learned friend has pointed out that it would be better to subsume reference to knowledge and experience of rents in the area into the "circumstances" to which regard is to be had. This would avoid any suggestion that the primary emphasis is to be given to this knowledge and experience to the possible exclusion of other methods of assessment. Your Lordships will readily see that this is what these two amendments seek to do and that, if incorporated, we shall arrive at a more felicitous text.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: We were very much in favour of the change originally made. I think this is even more helpful. I welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to anticipate and to plug loopholes before they ever arise. It also shows that they have considerable experience now in the Scottish Office of the Scottish property owners. I am glad that the noble Earl confirmed what I said earlier: that the dice is loaded against the tenant. We have had this experience over a long time, much to the distress of people who are sincere supporters of the fair rent system, who discover that the tenant is helpless there against the barrage of evidence that is brought by the landlord, which
1920
very often is just a property agent. They have all the facts and figures. They can take discriminating instances, and select evidence. It is usually the only factual evidence available because the tenant is not in a position to do that.
It is good to know that the Government have confidence in the rent officer to this extent. I have seen figures quoted, and the noble Earl will know that usually the appeal to the rent assessment committee is that from the landlord and the property owner, and the chances of the tenant winning are about nine to one. That is the experience, I gather, of cases. I saw this figure quoted some time ago. I hope that it is wrong. It shows once again that it is not always easy for the poor man to get justice and that the dice is very often loaded against him.
The Government here are doing what they can. It may well be that there is a case for looking at the actual constitution of the rent assessment committee at some later time. This is not the clause, and these are not the amendments, in which to do it. I approve of what the Government are doing within these amendments and I applaud their efforts.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Repeal of provisions relating to increase of recoverable rent on account of improvements]:
10.17 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 42, line 20, at end insert—
(" (3) The 1971 Act is amended as follows—

(i) in section 21(4) for to 24' there shall be substituted ' and 23';

(ii) in section 25(1)—

(a) after 21(2) ' insert ' or '; and

(b) the words or section 24(2) ' shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: This is a small, technical drafting amendment which deletes from Section 21 (4) and Section 25 (1) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 references to Section 24 of that Act which subsection (1) of this clause repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Cancellation of registration]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 42, line 28, at end insert (" (2) to (4), (7) and (8) ").
The noble Lord said: Any members of the Committee who have read the Notes on Clauses will find that there is some reference in those Notes to the new Section 44B which this particular clause inserts in the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971. The purpose is to enable a landlord to have a fair registration cancelled in certain circumstances. These circumstances are that the registration is at least three years' old and also at the time of application the dwelling is not then let on a regulated tenancy. The procedural requirements that are to be attached to such an application are already prescribed by Section 44A of the 1971 Act. As members of the Committee will already know, that section prescribes the procedure which is to apply to an application made jointly by landlord and tenant for the cancellation of an existing registration. What the amendment does is to delete from the procedural requirements of an application made under new Section 44B those elements of the procedure prescribed for joint applications that are clearly irrelevant where application is being made by the landlord alone. That is the procedure which we seek to make by this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Transfer of functions of rent tribunals to rent assessment committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Furnished lettings by certain bodies not tobePartVllcontracts]:
10.21 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 43, line 36, at end insert—
(" (2) Section 16(3) of the 1972 Act shall be amended by adding, after ' 85(3) ', (aa) or '.")
The noble Lord said: This is a short and, again, a rather technical amendment. This amendment will preserve the status quo as regards the entitlement to rent allowance by tenants of furnished premises which are let by any of the landlords who are listed in Clause 10(2). In practice it is most likely to affect housing association tenants. Without the amendment I am proposing these tenants would cease to be eligible for either the rent rebate or the rent allowance as a consequence of Clause 51, and the tenants would thus fall through the safety net which exists to assist with their rent those on lower incomes. As I have pointed out, it is a simple, technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Apportionment of rateable values for Part VII contracts]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 44, line 5, leave out from (" the ") to end of line and insert (" assessor on the ").
The noble Lord said: This is a dispute in relation to the division of the various proportions of rateable values to be borne by people in a dwelling-house. I think we are really going beyond what is reasonable when we have got to take everything to the law courts. The suggestion by the Government is that failing agreement the parties should go to the sheriff on an application by either side. Would it not be far better calling in the man who fixes the valuations—the assessor—and letting him make the decision? It is going to be very much cheaper for everybody concerned. It is not going to cost them anything at all, whereas if one takes the matter to law it will cost a lot of money. I am sure that, with his experience, the Minister will agree with me, although it may be against his own interests or the interests of his profession, that it would be far better to go to the regional valuation officer,

1923
better known in Scotland as the assessor. If the Minister does not like the name "assessor" and prefers the title "regional valuation officer", then we can put that in. The Minister can think about this and put that in at a later stage. But we are taking things far too seriously, and unnecessarily taking people into courts. In a case like this, where it is a matter of apportioning the rateable values, why not take it to the man who does that kind of thing all the time for a living? I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The effect of this amendment would be to transfer from the sheriff to the assessor responsibility for apportioning the rateable value where only part of a dwelling-house is subject to a Part VII contract. Ever since the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act 1933 the responsibility for settling disputes between landlord and tenants as to apportionment of rates has been placed on the sheriff—in England it is the county court—and so far as I am aware no difficulty has been encountered by sheriffs when called upon to perform this duty. I am very willing to be persuaded that there is some reason, and a good reason, for changing what has been the practice since 1933. I think my attitude to the noble Lord, if he really wants me to take this away and look at it, is to say, "Tempt me"!
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I will proceed now in my most dulcet tones to tempt the noble Earl the Minister. Surely, bearing in mind the potential load we are putting on sheriffs in the earlier part of this Bill, whereas hitherto there may have been no trouble, I do not think it is a great burden on sheriffs, but it might be better to relieve them of this burden in view of the other work we are throwing their way. After all, I am perfectly sure that people would accept the decisions of valuation officers as readily as they accept those of sheriffs. The valuation officer, or assessor, as he is better known in Scotland, is doing this all the time. In England and Wales I believe it is done by the Inland Revenue: they get it for nothing. In Scotland, apart from one area where it is done elsewhere, it is done by the regional valuation officer. I think he would do a good job. Certainly, so far as cost is
1924
concerned, it would be far better for the parties involved. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will take this away and look at it and give us the opportunity of having his mature reflections when we come to another stage of the Bill.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Compared to the noble Lord, the sirens were but corncrakes! I will take it away but with no commitment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Thank you. On that understanding I am delighted to be able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Notice to quit relating to Part VII contracts entered into after the commencement of Part IV]:
10.28 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 44, line 10, leave out (" Part IV ") and insert (" section 53 ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to introduce a minor degree of flexibility into the determination of the commencement date of the new Section 95B which this particular clause inserts into the Rent Act 1971 in Scotland. As it is currently drafted, the new Section 95B assumes that the whole of Part IV of this Bill will have the same effective date, but in practice that may not necessarily be the case. We think it seems preferable to make the provisions regarding the commencing date less rigid than they are at the moment. The amendment that I am putting forward would also bring Clause 53 into line with the other clauses, for example, Clause 51, in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Extent of operation of Section 119A of 1971 Act]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 45, line 17, leave out (" to ") and insert (" in ").
The noble Lord said: This is perhaps the most minor amendment of this evening. It corrects a mere printing error to leave out the word "to" and insert the word "in". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Recovery of possession of dwelling-house subject to regulated tenancy]:
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 48, line 8, at end insert—
(" (3) The following Case shall be inserted after Case 16 of the said Part II—
" Case 17
Where a person acquired the dwelling-house or any interest therein (he then being a member of the regular armed forces of the Crown) and without occupying it let it on a regulated tenancy and—

(a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing (he still being such a member at the date of the notice) to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case, and

(b) the dwelling-house has not, since the commencement date for this provision appointed under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, been let by the landlord on a protected tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) was not satisfied, and

(c) the court is of the opinion that one of the following conditions is satisfied—

(i) the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner or the spouse of the owner; or

(ii) the owner-occupier has died, and the dwelling-house is required as a residence by a person inheriting the dwelling-house under the will of the owner-occupier or on his intestacy; or

(iii) the owner-occupier has died and his personal representatives wish to dispose of the dwelling-house with vacant possession; or

1926

(iv) the dwelling-house is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the owner-occupier, having regard to his place of work, and he requires it for the purpose of disposing of it with vacant possession and of using the proceeds of that disposal in acquiring as his residence a dwelling-house which is more suitable to those needs; or

(v) the dwelling-house is subject to a heritable security, granted before the creation of the tenancy and as the result of a default by the debtor the creditor is entitled to sell the dwelling-house and requires it for the purpose of disposing of it with vacant possession in exercise of that entitlement.

Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require.
In this Case "regular armed forces of the Crown" means the Royal Navy, the regular forces as defined by section 225 of the Army Act 1955, the regular air force as defined by section 223 of the Air Force Act 1955, Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service.".")
The noble Earl said: I moved an amendment with the same purpose to the Housing Bill which deals with England. I cannot, of course, expect the noble Earl who speaks for the Government to have read the report of the Committee stage on the Housing Bill, as that would have been a very extensive job. I shall therefore explain what this amendment is intended to do, and how it does it.
It is intended to enable Service personnel to purchase their houses, which they cannot do at the present time. This is not a privilege. The structure of the law at present makes it virtually impossible for a man who is serving in the armed forces to buy his own house and to get into the housing market, which puts him at a disadvantage when compared with other members of the public.
It is common knowledge that about 80 per cent. of young people today want to buy their own houses, and that is certainly true of young people in the armed forces. It is also true that Scotland has about the lowest level of owner-occupation of any country in the western world. This is a situation which I am certain anybody who is interested in housing in Scotland will want to improve. It is improving, but it is not improving

1927
anything like fast enough. As regards mortgages, I am notionally interested, as president of the Building Societies Association, and, although I do not speak for them, I can say that the building societies approve of this amendment.
The problem is the nature of the engagement which the armed forces enter into. It is quite different from that of any other section of the community. From the word "go", they are housed by the Government—nobody else is housed by the Government from the word "go"—because they have to be under discipline and be able to move at extremely short notice to any place. No one else is in that position. If they buy a house, they fall under Section 10 of the 1971 Rent (Scotland) Act. That means that if they let the house they will never get it back again, and the court will not make an order for possession, unless—and the word "unless" is crucial—and then reference is made to various cases in Schedule 3 to that Act.
I shall not go through the cases, but none of them fits this situation. They deal with people who have occupied a house and have gone away; with people who are going to retire—and these people are not going to retire, because they have many years of active life in front of them; and with ministers of religion, who are a very specialised category, but by all means let them be included. But none of these cases touches Service personnel.
What is required? If a serviceman buys a house and he cannot occupy it, he must let it in order to pay the mortgage. But if he lets it, he loses the house and can never regain it. No one else is in that position and some solution must be found. Having obtained vacant possession, the serviceman then has to pay the mortgage, which he can do by getting rent, but if he does that the house is not capable of being repossessed. My proposal, under the amendment, is that the serviceman will give notice that he proposes to repossess the house after he leaves the armed forces, and then, in due course—provided he has given that notice —he will be able to repossess it. This is of very considerable significance to the armed forces. It is of particular significance, perhaps not so much to recruiting
1928
in the first place as to re-engagement. If you look at the White Paper on Defence, which has particular significance, what worries the Secretary of State for Defence is the increased number of experienced and well-qualified officers and servicemen who choose to leave prematurely. I believe this arrangement will have a considerable effect on re-engagement. I suggest to the Government that the Secretary of State for Defence is interested in improving the terms of the engagement. He speaks of increased pay as playing a big part. This will also play a big part. It will cost the Government nothing. It will make the terms of service better, and cost them absolutely nothing.
For that reason, noble Lords should consult the Secretary of State for Defence and see whether this is not something in which he is extremely interested. I think this is a fair and proper arrangement, and if I may use the words here, again from the Defence Review, our volunteer forces are a priceless national asset. By improving their terms of service, this is one of national interest. It is on those grounds that I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: If I could intervene at this stage, because we are not going to have a debate on the merits. The reason is this, and if I can say this it may help noble Lords who I know feel very strongly about this matter.
There has been a discussion, as my noble friend said, on a similar amendment moved by my noble friend in relation to the Housing Bill and at the invitation of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, my noble friend withdrew his amendment to enable the Government to consider the whole position which is highlighted by this amendment. Consideration is going on urgently at the moment between departments and my noble friend Lord Bellwin will be making a statement on behalf of the Government at a later stage—I assume during one of the later stages of the Housing Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a matter on which there is no Scottish separate dimension, and therefore it would not be appropriate for it to be dealt with here tonight, even if it could be; and conversely it would be appropriate for it to be dealt with in one pronouncement in relation to both Bills. So, in the same spirit, but perhaps without the same flowery language which my noble friend

1929
used on another occasion, could I ask the noble Earl, as he did before, to withdraw his amendment pending a considered Government response in due course.
Lord CARVER: I hesitate to detain the House at this hour of the night, and I greatly appreciate what the noble Earl has said, but I would like to say a few words in support of the noble Earl's amendment. This was important for the Housing Bill, and my noble and gallant friend Lord Hill-Norton made the point on behalf of the armed forces then. I believe it is even more important for Scotland. Scotland provides splendid men and women for all three services, but it so happens inevitably that very few of them can serve, and certainly serve, for long in their own home country. This is even more important for members of the regular armed forces in Scotland than it is for those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I would ask the Government most strongly to ensure that there is absolutely no question at all that at least the spirit of this amendment, moved by the noble Earl, is accepted.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Of course the Government will pay the greatest heed to what the noble and gallant Lord has said, particularly as he saw fit to say that it applies even more forcefully to Scotland than to other parts of the United Kingdom.
10.40 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I shall be brief. In responding to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the noble Earl was pushing at an open door. Is the noble Earl saying the same sort of thing now? For it was on that understanding that the noble Earl withdrew his amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to use similar language and will not put those who support this amendment in the position of having to withdraw now with greater difficulty because a statement by the Government is to follow which will cover both England and Scotland.
Secondly, as the noble Earl has said, this is not a new principle. The principle is established for ministers of religion, for lay missionaries, for those who buy a house in advance of their retirement. It is accepted even in the case of owner-
1930
occupiers who, having let their house, want to regain it on the ground that it is needed by themselves or their families. We are considering an old principle but we are seeking to apply it, for overwhelmingly good reasons, to men and women in the Services.
I am glad that the noble Earl made the point that the decision must be common to both countries, otherwise we should have Scottish servicemen retiring to England in order to achieve the benefit of this situation. I hope that the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—that the noble Earl was pushing at an open door—can be used by the noble Earl who is now speaking on behalf of the Government, bearing in mind that in due course a Commons statement will be made.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am grateful to both the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Carver, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, for what they have said. I am also grateful to the Government for what they have said. I have great confidence that the Government will take a sensible view about this, but do not let us have any nonsense about this applying only to troops overseas; it applies to all service personnel. It is the nature of the engagement that has to be considered, and that is what this Committee should enforce. I shall certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Maximum approved expense for the purposes of improvement grant]:
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 52, line 3, leave out (" £2,000 ") and insert (" £5,000 ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 142. If I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144, I think it would be for the

1931
convenience of the Committee. I do not intend to make a meal of it. We are trying to draw the Government's attention to the fact that a certain amount of inflation has taken place. Both of the Ministers on the Front Bench who are dealing with the Bill are estate owners and both must have observed that there has been some slight increase in the cost of doing up houses. I did up a house about a year ago. No real structural alterations were involved, but to bring that house up to date cost over £6,000. Therefore the figure of £2,000 for a complete refit is too small. The same is true of the other figures. That is all I have to say. I should like to hear the Minister's comment, not only from his position as Minister but from his personal knowledge of these matters.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Nothing that I say must be taken by the noble Lord as meaning to be offensive, because the clause as drafted shows only part of the new Section 5 of the 1974 Act, so that it might appear that only derisory sums are being offered for the installation of amenities. The amendments proposed seek to raise the maximum approved expenses for these associated repairs from the present limit of £2,000, which is the new level for repairs grant generally, to £5,000, a figure more in line with major schemes of improvement and certainly out of proportion to the cost of the repair work expected to be carried out under this clause.
In addition the clause makes allowance for £200 worth of repairs to be done when each single amenity is installed in a house expected to have a life of less than 10 years, subject to a maximum of £800. The amendments propose that these amounts should be raised to £500 and £2,000 respectively. There can be no hard and fast rules about the amount to be spent on repairs but we believe the sums we have suggested, which are in line with those proposed for England and Wales in the current Housing Bill, are reasonable, in line with current costs and would certainly make a significant and economically sensible contribution to improving the comfort of the house for its few remaining years.
If I may give an example, in a short life house the installation of an inside lavatory
1932
would attract a maximum approved expense for standard amenities grant of £270. Under this clause an additional sum of £200 would be available to carry out necessary associated repairs. In a house where expected life exceeded 10 years, installation of all the standard amenities would be eligible for a maximum approved expense of £1,600 with, under this clause, a further sum of £2,000 for repairs. Of course the noble Lord, as he said, has not made a meal out of this but, bearing in mind where he lives, might I perhaps suggest that there is an element of a raspberry fool?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I am grateful for the noble Earl's instruction. The raspberries are not quite ripe at the moment in our part of the world, so at the present time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Abolition of Scottish Housing Advisory Committee]:
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.48 p.m.
Lord ROSS of NIARNOCK: I should like to speak briefly about this particular clause, which abolishes the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. More than once during the course of this Bill I have mentioned in laudatory terms the work of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, and indeed during practically the whole of my parliamentary life I have been concerned with something that has been produced by that committee. I remember that in one of my first housing Bills, concerned with housing improvements, (I think it was in 1948 or 1949) we were dealing with a report from the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee on how to deal with and improve Scotland's older homes.
I think a chance was missed then. Certainly it was right after the war and not all that money was available for everything, but if we had done the right

1933
thing at that time we should probably have been about 20 years ahead in relation to improving and retaining very substantial and structurally good blocks of housing in Glasgow, rather than eventually abolishing them and losing some of the character of Glasgow. That was the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. For a time it did very good work, and then from 1950–51 to 1964 it virtually fell into disuse. It was not abolished but the Conservative Government at that time did not use it. I think that was to he deplored because there were problems it could have looked at and given good advice, and there might have been less controversy in housing as a result.
When I became Secretary of State again in 1964 I revived the work of this committee, and it has done sterling work. We have been talking tonight about repair grants of a tolerable standard; all these things were laid down by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee in a report in 1967. At the same time they were doing work on allocations. Part of the work within this Bill stems from the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. I think the Government have been rather hasty. It may be this searching after Quangos that they could abolish. It was not the most expensive Quango in the world in relation to the work it had been doing. Time and time again, as in the past, for a long time in the future reference will be made to the report of the Culling-worth Committee, one of the outstanding reports on Scottish housing by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee; that is the quality of work it can do when the Government give it the work to do.
I know the noble Earl is saying that during the last three or four years the last Labour Government did not use it. That does not mean there is no problem arising in Scottish housing; there may well be problems arising out of the consequences of this Bill itself, which could be dealt with by a committee which has already established a reputation for good and reliable work. It did not do the work on rural housing. It is a pity it did not, because it pinpointed the need for that to be done. It was done, I think, by officials of the Scottish Office and has never been published. If it had been done by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee it would have been published, and it may well be that our debates in respect of
1934
rural housing today would have been much more enlightened. Nobody is going to say that we are not going to have housing problems for which we require an independent committee like this. It had the power to form sub-committees. It dealt only with the things that were put to it by Governments. I regret very much indeed that the Government think that in the future there are going to be no problems and no work for the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.
I want to pay tribute to the men who have served on it and to the work they have done. I think they have done Scotland proud. This committee goes way back before 1945. It has a record of advice, much of which has been taken by Governments. Sometimes there were bitter pills for Governments to swallow, but the prestige of that committee was such that its recommendations had to be followed through into legislation. I do not know whether the noble Earl appreciates all that the committee has done and the quality of people who have served on it. I want to pay tribute to them. I regret that the Government have taken this decision, but I hope that we shall be able to call them together again when the time comes, when Scotland needs them, for independent advice on housing problems, for nobody is going to tell me that in the coming years we will not have serious problems in respect of which we shall need the advice of the kind of people who form the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee was set up in 1935 and since then it has been responsible for a great deal of very important work in this field. Over the years it produced a number of valuable and well thought out reports, and I pay my tribute to its labours. However, we must consider whether a permanent body like the advisory committee provides the best use of resources in the present circumstances and for the future.
To justify its continuing existence, as compared with a system of ad hoc working groups or studies, it would have to be able to demonstrate a considerable volume of research and recommendations over recent years. There is no point in keeping on a body which has become moribund simply because it was once active and useful.

1935
To judge how far this applies to the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, we may look back at the period of the last Labour Government when, to judge by the noble Lord's anxiety to retain the body now, it must have been given every encouragement to play its part in forming housing policy. If we do that, we find that in 1976 the committee met once. In 1977 it did not meet at all; and, in fact, by July 1977 the terms of appointment of all the members had expired and it was nine months before the then Secretary of State appointed any new members. So that alone shows how little importance the Labour Administration assigned to the committee.
Since then the committee has met twice in 1978 and twice in 1979. With such a low level of interest and activity it is simply not possible to argue that now the committee is a vital part of the Scottish housing scene. That is why we propose to abolish it so as to use our resources more effectively in promoting studies on an ad hoc basis as and when they are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the report on allocation and transfer. I pay tribute to the recommendation of that report. But I must point out that it was produced not by the committee itself but by an ad hoc sub-committee, half of whose members were not on the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee at all—they were specially appointed from outside for the inquiry and as soon as the inquiry was completed they ceased to be members. The arrangements under which that report was produced were, therefore, very similar to the ad hoc arrangements that I am suggesting should he employed in future. In those circumstances, I fear that I cannot share the noble Lord's apprehensions in this matter and I must suggest to the Committee that the clause is fit to take its place in the Bill.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The point is that from its formation in 1935 there have been blank periods. However, that did not prevent it coming along at various times; for instance, at the end of the war it dealt with the question of the modernisation of Scotland's homes. Indeed, it did so in 1964, 1967 and later. It did not cost anything at all to keep going and in being.
1936
I can assure the noble Earl that from my own experience as Secretary of State when a problem suddenly arises it is far better and may be less dramatic to refer it to an existing committee that one knows will do a job and will co-opt on to its membership special help when required, rather than to think about setting up a special ad hoc committee, finding a chairman and members and proceeding in that way. I do not want to argue about it, because it may be that argument will throw a cloud over the reputation and the work that has already been done by the committee. The noble Earl has paid tribute to it, but I think that he has made a wrong decision in respect of this particular clause.
Clause 72 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clauses 75 to 81 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 63, line 11, at end insert —

(" 14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 65.

Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.

In section 16(1) the word "standard".

In section 16(2)(c) the words from "and" to the end.

Section 16(4)(b).

In sections 17(2)(a)and (b) the word "standard" and in section 17(2)(a) the words from ",and" to the end.

In sections 18(2)(a)and (b) the word "standard" and in section 18(2)(a)the words from ",and" to the end.

Section 19(5).")

The noble Lord said: This amendment follows on the consequential repeals of

1937
the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951, following the amendments to that particular Act which we proposed and, indeed, took in Amendment No. 118. These are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 149 to 168:
Page 63, line 17, column 3, at end insert—
(" In section 17(3) the words ", or fail to make such regulations under the said subsection (2)(b) as the Secretary of State approves,".").
Page 63, line 23, column 3, at end insert—(" Section 145(5)(b).")
Page 63, line 41, at end insert—
(" 1970 c. 44.
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.")
Section 10
Page 63, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert (" In section 4(1) the words from "or of" to "Cornwall".")
Page 63, line 50, column 3, at end insert—
(" In section 25(1) the words "or section 24(2)".")
Page 64, line 3, leave out ("79") and insert ("76")
Page 64, line 7, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 82 the definitions of "qualification certificate" and" qualifying conditions ".")
Page 64, line 8, column 3, at end insert (" In section 85 the words from "or of" to "Cornwall".").
Page 64, line 9, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 100, the definition of "rent tribunal".").
leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
(" Section 123(2), and in section 123(3), the references to sections 24(3), 49(4), 50(4), 54(2) and 69(4).")
Page 64, line 26, at end insert (","repairs increase", "section 50 increase" and "standard rent".").
1938
Page 64, line 44, leave out (" tenancy ")
Page 64, line 48, column 3, at beginning insert—(" Section 49(2).")
Page 64, line 57, column 3, at end insert—
(" In Schedule 7, paragraphs I to 7.").
Page 65, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
(" In Schedule 13, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7.").
Page 65, line 10, leave out (""by that owner,"") and insert (""by the owner," in both places where they appear,")
Page 65, line 21, column 3, at end insert—(' Section I4A(2).')
Page 65, line 26, column 3, at end insert—(" In Schedule 3, paragraph 37.")
Page 65, line 32, leave out (""when"") and insert (""where"")
Page 65, line 35, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 5, in subsection (2) the words" and the terms of any agreement shall be approved by him ", in subsection (3) the words "and to the terms".".).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments; a Special Report made and to be printed.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.