Lords Sitting of 21 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 Exeter.

JERUSALEM: UN RESOLUTION ON FUTURE STATUS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached by the United Nations Security Council on the future of Jerusalem.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, Security Council Resolution 476, passed on 30th June, reaffirmed that no unilateral action should, or can, change the status of Jerusalem, and called for Israel to rescind all such unilateral actions. We voted in favour of the resolution, in line with the position that successive British Governments have taken on Jerusalem.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that Answer, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of us
2
who are deeply concerned about the security of Israel are fearful that, unless the Jerusalem problem is solved, there may be another war in the Middle East, with disastrous world consequences? Can the Minister say whether the Government support the authoritative proposal of my noble friend Lord Caradon that there should be Jewish and Arab regions in Jerusalem, with a joint co-ordinating council?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the Government are only too well aware of what the noble Lord said in the first part of his supplementary question. The Government's position is that there can be no unilateral solution to the problem of Jerusalem, and of course we should be prepared to look at any solution which met with the approval of the parties.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, when considering this problem, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will once again refer to Psalm 122 and verses 4 and 5 of Psalm 137, from which he will realise why the Jewish people in the world consider Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Will the noble Lord also consider the fact that for 1,000 years Jerusalem was open to all religions, and that people were allowed to worship in accordance with their own religion in the Temple, of all places? Thirdly, will he bear in mind the kind of thing that happened when Jordan took over—about which very few people, including our Government, said anything —when they desecrated 52 synagogues and used many as latrines? Does not the noble Lord consider that in those circumstances Israel is justified in wanting its capital to remain?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I believe that all of us know the feelings that the Jewish people and the Israeli people have about Jerusalem. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that, if we are to find a solution to the Middle East problem —the Arab-Israel conflict—it is necessary that there should be agreement about the future of Jerusalem, not just by the Israelis, but also by the Arabs. All of us hope that such an agreement is possible, and that it can be arrived at in friendship.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are those of us on this Bench who hope that the Israelis, in regard to the claims of the Arabs, will be as sensitive as many of us have been to the Israelis in times gone by? Are Her Majesty's Government aware that for that reason many of us on this Bench are wholeheartedly in support of their effort to bring about a reconciliation which will give a just settlement to both peoples?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, since he expresses quite clearly what is the object of Government policy. It is not to take sides with one or the other; it is to bring about reconciliation.
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I support what the right reverend Prelate said and indeed welcome the tone and content of what the Foreign Secretary said? Is the noble Lord aware that this problem cannot be solved by unilateral action, whether it be political or otherwise, but can respond only to reconciliation, concession and co-operation by all those concerned?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite expresses exactly what I was trying to say to his noble friend behind him.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government are taking steps to bring about some kind of international control of the old city of Jerusalem, and perhaps of East Jerusalem, too?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend will have seen the declaration issued by the Community at Venice some weeks ago. The purpose of that declaration
4
was to start a series of contacts with the parties concerned to see what common ground there was and to explore the question of whether negotiation was possible. Obviously in that context the problem of Jerusalem will come up.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, I think that, if there is a broad measure of agreement in the House, perhaps we should move on to the next Question.

FAO: APPEAL FOR FOOD AID
2.42 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what response they have made to the appeal by Dr. Edouard Saouma, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, for action by the international community to avert a disaster of an unprecedented character by food shortages in many countries.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have recently announced special help for Cambodia, Somalia and Uganda, all of which are areas which the director-general mentioned. We already contribute to the World Food Programme. We expect our food aid obligations this year, both direct and through the European Community, to cost over £40 million. As my honourable friend stressed recently in another place, we very much want to see developing countries give greater priority to agricultural and food production in their investment plans. We shall continue to do what we can in answer to their requests, and shall encourage international agencies to follow suit.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer. May I ask him: Did not Dr. Saouma say that 29 countries are now suffering from food shortage, and is this not particularly the case in Eastern Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Northern Kenya and Tanzania, where hundreds are dying every day? Has not

5
the United Nations launched an appeal for a million or a million and a half tons of grain which are needed this year? I did not quite gather how far the Government have responded to that appeal.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the facts which the noble Lord has stated are, broadly speaking, correct. I suspect that probably there is not so much a shortage of food in the world. Indeed, the FAO are now forecasting a 4 per cent. increase in world cereals after this harvest. The difficulty is very largely in distribution, and we must all do what we can. In my original Answer I pointed out that, this year, the Government will be contributing something like £40 million in food aid.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while again thanking the Minister, may I ask him this question: Did not the United Nations World Food Council decide in favour of a food strategy linking developed countries with needy, developing countries? Have not 39 countries now joined that scheme? Has Britain joined? I understood there were negotiations with Sudan.
Lord CARRINGTON: Perhaps I ought to know that, my Lords, but I wonder whether I may write to the noble Lord, or tell him later. I am afraid I cannot give him the exact answer to that now.

NATIONAL PARKS ADMINISTRATION
2.45 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: 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 it is correct that there is a departmental survey which proposes to terminate the present administration of National Parks; and, if that is so, what is the view of the Government on such proposals.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may be referring to a discussion paper published last year by the Countryside Review Committee, which proposed that a review
6
should take place of the present system of landscape and nature conservation designations. The paper did not carry ministerial endorsement, and responses to it from interested organisations and members of the general public are now under consideration. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to make a Statement on this before the end of the year.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Could he tell the House the organisations which were invited to make comments on this document, and could he comment on whether or not it is correct that some 35 organisations are stated to have made comments, including bodies such as the 11 National Parks authorities, the Forestry Commission, the National Trust and the National Conservation Council, but that only one of the organisations, the Forestry Commission, has declared in favour of the proposals?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the list which the noble Lord would like to have is too long for me to bother the House with it, but I shall certainly write and give it to him. As to the comments or dissatisfaction expressed, I think, again, that is really a matter which is under review by the Government. There has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction in some circles, I would accept. Whether it is as great as the noble Lord is saying, I am not quite sure; but I will undertake to write to the noble Lord about the first part of his supplementary question.

VOLUNTEER RESERVES: RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING
2.47 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 progress has been achieved during the current year in the number of persons who have joined the auxiliary forces, and in the provision of satisfactory equipment and facilities for training, and to what extent.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, we have made very good progress in recruiting for all the volunteer reserves, particularly since the announcement last August of increased rates of bounty and other measures recommended in the Shapland Report. In the case of the Territorial Army, almost 17,000 recruits joined between July 1979 and April of this year, the latest date for which figures are available. Recruitment to the other volunteer reserves, including the three new Regiment Squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the new Royal Naval Reserve Air Branch, is also going well.
On the equipment side, the current year has seen the introduction into the Territorial Army of Blowpipe and the 105 millimetre gun for the air defence and field artillery regiments; Clansman radios for NATO-roled units; and Larkspur radios for the General Reserve Battalions. For the Royal Naval Reserve we have announced plans to purchase a new class of minesweeper in the course of the next few years.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he satisfied that we have reached anything in the nature of the target which we sought to obtain, and is he satisfied that those in authority in this matter are as active as they might be? Furthermore, is he satisfied that the modern equipment, which is essential for adequate training, is now available to those connected with the auxiliary forces?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord poses the question whether we are satisfied. The answer, as I have said before in this House, is that we are never satisfied. We continue to do our best. We believe that the equipment becoming available to the Territorial Army represents an improvement. We do our best to keep the equipment for the Territorials analogous to the equipment that they would be using serving alongside their fellows in the event of a conflict, but we have to accept that any equipment allocated to the Territorial Army is inevitably equipment which is denied to the regular services, so there are limitations.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not desirable now to make a very real drive in relation to the auxiliary forces? This would be of value to the armed forces, but it would also have a considerable social value. Is it not desirable that those who cannot gain commercial employment should at least have a vocation, and do not the auxiliary forces provide something of this sort, which is both interesting and valuable training?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I agree with him entirely. But we must be a little careful about going too far down this road. We must not start using the auxiliary forces as some direct means of alleviating unemployment, which is not their purpose although it is a useful side effect.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to understand that, although I welcome the improvement, I am far from satisfied; and that my intention is to worry him, and all those associated with him and connected with the auxiliary forces, until we have reached the target that we have sought to achieve for many years?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that unremitting effort will be required. I can only say we have not done badly in our first year of office and that we intend to keep up the pace.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, despite the enormous additions to various complicated equipment, he can say more about equipment such as"B"vehicles—like the Land Rover—which are sometimes below standard in the auxiliary forces?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the "B" vehicle situation is not a good situation anywhere in the forces. It is said, and I have said it before, that some of the vehicles being driven are older than the people driving them. This is not a desirable state of affairs. It is something that we shall rectify as soon as possible. Here, again, the main thrust of a re-equipment drive must be on the offensive, front-line weapons.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is a dilemma for those in industry in the junior management field between their responsibilities to their companies and their aspirations in being involved in the auxiliary forces? Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the management of industry so that if young men and women wish to join the services they receive the encouragement of such management?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementary question shows a considerable understanding of an important problem. We talk as much as possible to all forms of industry. Government-owned industry tries to give a lead; the CSD tries to give a lead. There are two problems. One is the question of when it is convenient for industry to allow people to go off to attend camp; and the other is the possibility of actual, direct financial support by giving more holidays to compensate for the holidays given up through training in the auxiliary forces.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has pointed to the problem, but what I was asking the noble Lord is this: Is there sufficient relationship and
understanding between the Ministry of Defence and industry to overcome this particular problem?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, whether there is sufficient, I do not know. It is something that we are trying to improve upon. It is not an unsatisfactory situation, but I dare say that there is room for improvement. We talk to people like the CBI about it.

BUSINESS
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trenchard will repeat a Statement being made in another place on telecommunications monopoly.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinners will be available this evening at the usual
10
time. The Report stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for about an hour, and the European Communities order will be taken during that adjournment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and to be printed.

HOUSING BILL
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Exceptions to right to buy]:
2.55 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 105, line 18, leave out from ("dwelling-house") to end of line 22 and insert ("is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I find it very appropriate that this should be the first amendment to he considered today. As noble Lords will remember, the question of safeguards for persons of pensionable age and their accommodation was one which was discussed at great length during the Committee stage and it is clearly an issue that raises great concern on all sides of the House. I must stress at the outset that I do not consider this to be a dive into party political waters. Whatever may be our feelings about the Government policy for giving a right to buy to council tenants, I am sure we are all in agreement that when it comes to the practical implications of that policy, with regard particularly to accommodation for elderly people, there must be safeguards to ensure that those in need of rented housing do not suffer.
During the debate in Committee, very widespread anxieties were expressed from all Benches about the serious consequences for people of pensionable age if there were to be, as a consequence of the right to buy, a serious erosion of the supply of the only suitable accommodation available to meet their needs. In Committee, I, with the

11
noble Lord, Lord Hylton, advocated an amendment which would have excluded from the right to buy all accommodation normally used in practice for letting to elderly people. That, I believe, would have been the best safeguard. However, it was quite clear that the Government felt that this went too far and they also felt (and understandably so, looking at it from the stance of the Government) that this might be used by some local authorities as a device to get round the right-to-buy provisions of the Bill.
Therefore, in the time between Committee stage and today I have given serious thought to this issue, to the various points of view which were expressed during the Committee debates and have brought forward this amendment as (as I hope all Members of the House will consider) a sensible compromise. Firstly, it is much more tightly defined than the amendment I proposed in Committee. It will apply only to properties which were designed or specially adapted for elderly people and which it is the practice of landlords to let to such people. In this respect, it draws broadly upon the thinking of my noble friends Lady Denington and Lord Greenwood and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who put forward amendments which were designed to cover these circumstances. Where it differs from their amendments is that it excludes such properties from the right to buy rather than applying pre-emptions. The reasons for this are simple and, I believe, are of overriding importance. I understand that I now have the support of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in this amendment.
My Lords, I think that we must also remember at this stage that this would merely give discretion to local authorities. There is no question of a compulsion on them not to sell, but in this area they would have local discretion. In the first place, the amendment follows the pattern which the Government themselves have chosen in respect both of accommodation for the disabled and of sheltered housing. There is no valid logic for applying entirely different criteria to properties designed or specially adapted for the elderly which are not part of sheltered housing from those which apply to houses which happen to be part of such a scheme. Both types of accommodation are essential to meet
12
their needs. The supply of sheltered housing is known to be far less than required to meet the demand, a demand which is growing all the time with increasing longevity.
The cuts in public expenditure, which have resulted in severe cuts in housing, mean that we have to face the fact that, both now and in the foreseeable future, it will be very difficult—almost impossible —for local authorities to replace the housing stock and therefore to replace the housing for the elderly which, in the meantime, if these remain as they are, will be sold. In consequence, each available unit of sheltered housing is inevitably heavily over-subscribed. Many elderly people today, who would ideally wish to find accommodation in a sheltered housing unit, have to make do with the nearest alternative letting that they can find. This applies to a very wide range of elderly people. Very often they have moved from their own homes, where they have been owner-occupiers, either because they can no longer manage the stairs, or the houses are too large, or because they want to be near their close relatives.
In a recent Department of the Environment survey, Housing for Old People, it showed that out of 420,000 local authority dwellings suitable for the elderly, only 199,000 have warden services or some form of special facilities as outlined in the schedule to the Bill as it stands at present, and would be exempted from sale. This means the potential sale of 221,000 existing dwellings that are suitable for old people. Therefore it means it would be very wrong indeed if their prospects of finding somewhere to live when they are of pensionable age were to be seriously jeopardised by widespread sales of the present accommodation.
I must say here that it is true—and I appreciate the point that was made in Committee by the Minister—that old people should have the opportunity to buy their own houses, where that is possible; but the situation today is considerably different from the time when the Bill was originally drafted and the Conservative Party manifesto worked out. To give an overriding right to buy would seem to me to be quite wrong both in present and foreseeable future circumstances.
Secondly—and this is becoming more and more recognised—the incorporation of a pre-emption clause is a far less effective safeguard than the exemption of such lettings from the right to buy. The pre-emption of course applies only for the limited period of time—for 10 years. It is dependent—and this is one of the most important points—on the local authority having the resources to buy back the housing at a later date at the then current market value, which must of course be considerably greater than the price for which the property was sold. We have to take into account inflation and also the fact that when it was sold it was sold very often with a considerable discount. The trouble is that a pre-emption safeguard cannot prevent a lethal erosion of the stock of rented housing suitable for the elderly.
In some areas—I am thinking here particularly of rural and seaside areas, where bungalows are in very great demand and will command a high price—this could well result in the loss over a period of 15 to 20 years from the enactment or this Bill of the major part—if not all—of the rented accommodation currently available to meet the needs of the elderly. That would be a tragedy which I am quite sure none of us could possibly wish to see happen.
There is also another point regarding the area of abuse that I am afraid this opens. The rural community councils tell me that estate agents in Devon, Cornwall and Sussex are even now advertising their availability to assist elderly council tenants in purchasing their houses. In this way, through making some financial arrangements, they feel that both parties will gain some advantage. I cannot believe that any Government would wish this to happen. Therefore, this amendment is a sensible compromise which will safeguard accommodation that I have described—that is, houses, bungalows and some ground-floor flats which have been specially designed or adapted—which it is the practice of the local authorities to let to elderly people.
It will also help to keep the elderly integrated into the community. Their fears would be placated and they would have a chance to live in houses suitable to them because of special adaptation
14
and design. It would have a further advantage of enabling people who are still mobile but who find it difficult to manage the stairs, difficult to bend to a low electric socket or who are in need of some of the special heating facilities that would be put in these dwellings, to continue being independent, living in the community and carrying on active lives. That is something everybody wants to see.
The Government have put down an amendment to be discussed later which is I imagine a desire to find some compromise to this problem. I hope I am right in thinking that the Minister would like to make the best effort he can on the part of helping the elderly to live in homes that are suitable for them and to stop the erosion of this stock. I appreciate that there are pressures from another place and all sorts of things go on over which he has not the control that he and we might like to feel he has. As often happens with compromises, sometimes they are all right and sometimes they turn out to be exactly what they were not intended to be. I am afraid that this amendment, which is the Government compromise, fulfils these unfortunate criteria.
The amendment is extraordinarily limited and will in no way safeguard the types of accommodation which I have been talking about. It applies only to dwellings which have features which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwellinghouse. This is very imprecise and no doubt it will have to await the courts to decide what features make a dwellinghouse substantially different from an ordinary dwellinghouse, especially in this context. When we are talking about the disabled, that is an entirely different matter.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities have taken legal advice. I received this letter this morning:
"After taking legal advice, we have come to the conclusion that the words ' substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house' impose such limitations that in practice it does not add significantly to the exclusion that is already provided for in Section 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill".
They go on to enlarge on a further point: there will be great areas of uncertainty if people are thinking of buying houses and are not sure whether they come

15
within the pre-emption clause or not. They will not know exactly where they are. It is also extremely difficult, when this cannot be precisely defined, to see how it can be part of a piece of legislation and, at the same time, be made workable.
This is an extremely complex Bill as I think all of us who have had anything to do with it have mentioned on many occasions. If one is to increase the complexity in this area, which is a highly sensitive human area, then it can only do damage to the legislation and will not help at all to promote it. It will, I presume, cover sheltered housing, but this is already covered by paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1; otherwise, it will be extremely difficult for the people concerned to know where they are.
In the debate in Committee the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, at column 1799 of Hansard:
"the last thing that we intend is that we should make it more difficult for elderly people to be adequately and properly housed; that is not our intention at all. But what will have to be decided at the end of the day is whether what we propose does or does not have that effect".
I submit that what is in the Government's amendment has the effect of not housing the elderly as they should be housed and of being quite counter-productive, if the object is as set out by the Minister.
It is also true that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his speech in the House of Commons on 21st February, stated:
"Needs and problems have become increasingly specific and local. The emphasis of public sector housing policy must be to meet particular needs, such as those of the elderly and handicapped".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 667.]
In other words, on that occasion some months ago he accepted and recognised the need for the public sector to be the repository of most of the rented accommodation for elderly people, as well as the disabled and other categories.
Age Concern, in their recent comments on the Bill, have said:
"Our original view was that all group dwellings for the elderly should be exempted, and other dwellings normally let to elderly people should be subject to a ten year pre-emption clause. This would have enabled elderly tenants in non-specialist schemes the right to buy, while allowing the local authority some control over its housing stock to respond to housing needs. However, in view of the recent public expenditure cuts in
16
housing we have reconsidered our position, since it is likely that local authorities will not be in a financial position to buy back properties. We have therefore come to the view that all dwellings that are normally let to elderly people should be exempted. We feel that this would be the only way of creating a balance between individual and community needs".
I would point out that my amendment is even more tightly drawn and rather more restrictive than that, because, in my endeavours to try to find something that will be acceptable to the Government, I have used that phrase from another Act.
Finally, I would say that the Government's amendment can only result in a great deal of legal nit-picking, without providing any effective safeguard for the types of elderly person's housing about which we were all concerned in Committee. I hope that the Government and the House generally will accept that this is a sensible compromise safeguard, and that the amendment will have all-round support. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support this amendment from these Benches. My only doubt about it is that it is so moderate and does not go nearly as far as many of us—or, certainly, I—think it should do. It seems to me extraordinary, when there is this shortage of old person's accommodation, that we should allow it to be sold, particularly as it has been designed to help old people. I should have thought it was better if they were not able to buy it at all. This amendment does not go anything like as far as that. What it does do is to remove from the Bill a very restrictive provision which states,
…and a social service or special facilities are provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses for the only or main purpose of assisting those persons."
Unless you fulfil that condition, the dwelling cannot be exempted. That is according to the Bill. So I very strongly support this amendment and, if it goes to a Division, I hope that other noble Lords will also do so, bearing in mind that a great many of those in this House are pensioners.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I was rather impressed with the arguments

17
which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, put, with, I thought, great moderation. I live in a rural area and I know very well how difficult it is to find accommodation for old people in areas in which they have lived all their lives. The housing stock in some of these villages is very small indeed. I thought that the proposal which the noble Baroness made would be, on balance, a good one and at this stage, not having heard my noble friend, I feel inclined to support it. If my noble friend does not agree, I hope that he will make very clear what he thinks would be dangerous or wrong about this amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I add just a few words? Those of us who have been in close contact with constituencies will remember the number of people who came to us as Members of Parliament, in order that they might preserve their homes. This is not a problem only of houses. I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply fully appreciates, and is wholly sympathetic towards, the fact that people do not want to go elsewhere and that they regard the house as being their own. Any step which prevents their continuing in that home is something which is a very serious action against persons who ought to be comforted in their elderly days.
I was going to say that this amendment goes much further than I myself would go, but, at the same time, I realise why it attempts to help by creating a position in which the requirements of elderly people are attended to. I strongly appeal to the noble Lord the Minister to consider this amendment as being a reasonable approach to the matter and to do what he can—f am sure that he himself must be persuaded, in his heart of hearts—to persuade those with whom he is associated to do the same. This is a very important matter.
3.20 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in the plea which he makes in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It would be most unfortunate if as a consequence of this Bill more old people were constrained to be moved from their individual dwelling-houses, with all
18
their treasured possessions around them, into old people's homes.
I have seen, at second-hand, I must admit, enough of life in some communal homes for old people—and I have heard a great deal more from my wife, who is greatly involved with this—to have a strong sense of the feeling of banishment, of the feeling of loneliness, even though they may be with a considerable number of other old people, and of the feeling of stagnation as a result of being in an old people's home. I think that it is most important, following a remark made by the noble Baroness, that this country, whose elderly population is becoming more numerous, should leave the provision of individual accommodation in the hands of local authorities or housing corporations, not only for those who are living there at present but for those who, when the present incumbents have unhappily passed away, will become old and who, in their turn, will need accommodation. On those grounds, and on the ground that unfortunately our ageing and more decrepit elderly population is unlike those inhabitants of the Caucasus whom I have met, who seem to possess the facility of continued vigour, virility and activity into ages beyond 100, I believe that we should retain this facility. I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I have been very glad to be able to add my name to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, and I most earnestly plead with the Government to accept it. It is most important that in this Bill we should defend and protect the rights of old people. As I observed in my speech at Second Reading and as I am sure has been the experience of noble Lords in this House, I have received an enormous correspondence both from individuals and from organisations concerned with one aspect or another of the Bill. A great many of the representations which I have received have been from organisations that are concerned with the protection of the rights of old people, and a great many of the fears which have been expressed in letters have come from old age pensioners who are afraid that the places where they have lived and which they have secured by their savings may be in jeopardy. I believe that that danger

19
will be removed by the amendment which the noble Baroness has moved. Therefore I shall support it, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, this topic of special provision for the elderly was, I think rightly, the most important point to which the Committee gave attention at the earlier stage of this Bill. It is certainly something which the Association of District Councils, representing 300 of the housing authorities in the country—much the largest number—has been urging upon the Government from the moment that the Bill was first prepared in the department and throughout its passage through both Houses.
The House will recall that at tile Committee stage the whole question was canvassed from two different points of view and approached in two ways. The first was along the lines of this amendment, with a view to securing an exception in the case of elderly people from the right to buy. The alternative approach was to secure for the local housing authority a pre-emptive right to the repurchase of the property if it subsequently came on to the market. That proposal was
put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, in their respective amendments. My recollection is that after a full discussion of the amendments based upon the first method and the amendments based upon the second method, the Government undertook to take the matter away and come forward with something based upon the second. I venture to suggest that, on the whole, that was the method favoured by the Committee as a whole, although we had no vote upon it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, when the Government offered to take the matter away the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the point—if he had not I should have done so myself—as to whether it should be taken back, otherwise at that time there would have been a vote upon what was a wider amendment than this. All the amendments were taken back. There was no decision at that time that we had moved into the position that the noble Lord is talking about now.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree that there was no decision either way. Also, I certainly agree that the amendment which the noble
Baroness has now put forward is a great improvement on a similar amendment which she moved in Committee and that it is much more tightly drawn. Nevertheless, for my part I still greatly favour, and so do the ADC, the approach to the problem which is represented by Amendment No. 23 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Bellwin. It provides for the right to buy not to be taken away from the elderly—I should have thought that the case for that was very strong—but gives the right to buy to the local housing authorities. This is the amendment now favoured by the Association of District Councils. Therefore, I strongly recommend my noble friend to stick to his guns, and in due course to move Amendment No. 23, and the House to resist Amendment No. I which certainly attempts to deal with the problem but which deals with it in the wrong way.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, first may I say that I very warmly welcome the amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness. It is well thought out, and it is moderate and permissive. It is also very tightly drawn and would set very clear boundaries and distinctions as to the kind of properties which would he available for local authorities to retain as against those which could be sold. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has commended to us Amendment No. 23 which we shall debate later. I do not wish to rehearse those arguments now but my complaint against that amendment is not the right of pre-emption, which the noble Lord mentioned, but the wording to which the noble Baroness has referred your Lordships—"substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house"—which, on a fairly objective assessment by the AMA and other authorities, is very difficult to define. My own amendment sought to retain the right of pre-emption. As I said during the Committee stage, I think that it is a pity that older people should not have some opportunity to make a profit in due course on the re-sale of their house.
However, I recognise now, for I have thought a great deal about this problem

21
since having seen the Marshalled List, read the amendment put down by the noble Baroness and taken advice, that we should be confronted with the right of pre-emption. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me about this, but I do not think that he will be able to. Local authorities at present and in the likely future climate will not be able to repurchase properties which were designed and built principally for old people. Therefore, on balance, I prefer the noble Baroness's amendment, although I must go on to say that I prefer my own amendment to the Minister's. But that, I suppose, is understandable. If we pass the noble Baroness's amendment the type of accommodation for which we are taking away the right of sale will at least be clear. But if, as I suspect your Lordships might be inclined to do at this moment, we pass the Government amendment, we would be left with a great area, a great miasma of uncertainty which would go on at least for 10 years until the matter was tested in court when the pre-emption came up.
I think it is vitally important, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt said, that the able-bodied elderly should be encouraged in every possible way to live in their own accommodation, unfettered by any restrictions. In this day and age the average old age pensioner, the elderly person, is not, speaking in general, going to be able to afford to buy his or her own house during retirement. Therefore, the overwhelming proportion of old people's accommodation available for able-bodied old people will have to come from the public sector, and if we are in fact saying, as the Government are saying, that there is going to be a massive cutback in local authority building of all kinds—it is already happening—then, unless we preserve the stock of houses specifically designed or set aside for old people, we shall come to a situation in five or 10 years where there is virtually no accommodation available for the able-bodied elderly people. I beg the Government, with the greatest goodwill, to accept this amendment and to make it part of the legislation. It would make a great improvement to the legislation and I believe we would be widely praised throughout the country if we were to take this generous line.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, it is quite obvious that in this Chamber there is very great concern on this subject. But it is not just in this Chamber. As has already been said, there is deep concern over this matter generally. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, the local authorities are extremely concerned about the loss of accommodation for aged people through the sale of bungalows which might go to anybody in the open market because they are very desirable properties. The housing association movement is deeply concerned about it all, and there is an enormous responsibility—I hesitate to say this because I am sure your Lordships are fully aware of it—on us here this afternoon in the decision that we take in this matter. I cannot stress enough that there really is not enough accommodation available to meet the needs of our ageing population. The pressure on it everywhere is most acute.
Let us be quite clear what we are talking about. We are not talking about sheltered accommodation, where there is a warden and a bell system. The Government have already exempted that, quite rightly and properly, and we are glad it is exempted. We are not talking about accommodation specially adapted for the disabled. That, too, is already exempted, and we are grateful. We are talking about the hundreds and hundreds —did not the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, give us a figure of something over 200,000? —of units of accommodation, ordinary, mainly one-bedroom bungalows or flats, that have been provided and are now occupied by our elderly senior citizens. It is accommodation that is for fit people—not unfit people, but fit people, broadly speaking, between the ages of 60 and 8020 years of their lives. They move into it because their houses are too big for them. There is a great need for family accommodation, and so they are glad to release the accommodation they are in, whether it is in a private market or the local authority market, for a family who are wanting family accommodation.
So they move into the bungalow or flat, which helps them and helps a family. It helps them, because as one gets older and although one is fit, very often one finds it difficult to go up and down stairs.

23
Elderly people do not want big accommodation, anyway, and a small, comfortable, cozy (if I can use that word) unit of accommodation is just what suits them, provided that they can get a home help. That is all they want. Very often at the beginning help is required for only one day a week, and as they get older it may increase even to five days a week. But they are living independently. Surely it is the need of this nation that we enable people and do everything we can to let them go on living independently as long as they are able to do so and not be dependent upon hospitals or the social services more than they need.
This is what we are talking about. Really there is not enough accommodation at all to meet this need. There is not nearly enough in the private sector. I have said this before, and I wish to goodness that the Government could in some way encourage the private sector to build suitable small accommodation for people who want it, who are selling a house, and have money to buy this kind of accommodation. But mainly it has been the local authorities and the housing associations who have tried to meet this urgent need for the nation. It is in order to preserve this that we are all stressing our concern this afternoon.
I thought the Minister listened to us with great sympathy the last time we discussed this matter, and I had great hopes that he would come forward with some suitable proposal. I looked up the words he used before. He said:
"I feel it was most likely that we should want to do something about it".
I am sure the Minister does want to do something about it, but I think at this stage we must draw attention to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has down for later consideration. I was bitterly disappointed when I read that amendment because, quite frankly, it gives us nothing. There are the two words in that amendment--my Lords, I understand that a Statement is to be made. Shall I finish my speech or stop for the Statement? I must ask for the guidance of the House.
Several noble Lords: Finish.
Baroness DENINGTON: Thank you, my Lords. I shall try not to be too long.
24
I must turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, which says that he will only exempt a place that is substantially different. What does "substantially different" mean if it is challenged in the court? It cannot mean that one has got a pole up by the bath; that is not substantially different, although that is the sort of thing that is put in as an extra in an old person's bungalow. It cannot be that one has got a special low bath—that is not substantially different—or that the taps are different. It could not stand up in a court of law; it is not possible that it could. These are ordinary bungalows, and therefore, much as we would like to if it were possible, I cannot see how we could accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. So we are faced with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and clearly it is the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for which we all ought to go.
On the last occasion, I withdrew my amendment. Your Lordships may remember that even then I spoke to the original amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I am doing the same now. If I am forced to vote because we do not carry this one—I do hope we shall carry it—then I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Evans. We are both on exactly the same wavelength, as I think most of your Lordships are, in that we want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I think I would have to begin by saying, first of all, that my concern and that of the Government is no less than the concern of anyone who has spoken in so far as both the rights of individual elderly persons and the needs of the community as a whole to be able to provide accommodation for the elderly are concerned. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would greatly increase the scope of the exemption of elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy provided in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. I pay tribute without any reservation to the forthright and indeed humane way in which she and others have spoken on this subject, but what

25
they propose cannot be reconciled with fairness and equality of treatment for the elderly and the right to buy. At the last election, the Conservative Party manifesto contained a promise that—
Lord STRABOLGI: Oh!
Lord BELLWIN: —council and new town tenants would be given the right to buy their homes. That promise did not leave out the elderly or any other class of tenant. The Government's policy is that as many secure tenants as possible in the public sector should have the right to buy and that exceptions to that rule should be kept to an absolute minimum. In the case of old people's dwellings, we concluded that the right and fair approach was to identify in the Bill the circumstances in which the right of individual tenants was outweighed by the need for their dwelling to be kept in the ownership of the community and to exclude the dwellings concerned.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 imposes a triple test for exclusion. The first test is that the dwelling must be one of a group; the second is that it must be the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling for occupation by persons of a pensionable age; the third is that social service or special facilities must be provided in close proximity to the group of dwellings. In the view of the Government, this achieves the right balance. Because of the strength of the concern expressed in Committee on this subject, I said that with my colleagues I would consider further the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk and the noble Baroness, Lady Denington.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, did the Minister not also say that he would also consider my amendment at Committee stage at the same time?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sure I did and I apologise to my noble friend for not mentioning his name. These amendments would have required the conveyance or lease to contain a covenant giving the landlord the right to first refusal at full market value if an elderly person's dwelling sold under the right to buy was resold within 10 years. I have fulfilled the commitment which I then
26
gave by tabling Amendment No. 23, upon which noble Lords opposite have spoken and upon which I will reserve further comments because I am assuming that we are not taking this present amendment together with those and I will therefore come back to that subject on Amendment No. 23.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has argued that pre-emption is not the answer because the landlord would have to pay the full market value of the dwelling if it was brought back. That was among the other points which she made and she also referred to local authorities' resources and asked what resources they would have to buy back. Indeed, I think other speakers as well suggested that local authorities would not be in a position to buy back because of the cuts in the housing investment allocations. We are speaking of a pre-emption right over a period of 10 years, and I suggest that the position of housing allocations at the present time does not have any great relevance to the ability or otherwise of local authorities to buy back in 10 years' time. Quite apart from the other aspects, I will not, unless pressed, speak upon the housing finances of local authorities because I could make a very strong case with regard to the extra finances that they will have available to them when other aspects of this Bill come into force and which will enable them to do far more in connection with the provision of accommodation, should they so wish. However, leaving that aside, the ability to buy back from resources is not relevant in so far as the present housing allocation position is concerned.
In tabling Amendment No. 23 we have endeavoured to meet the anxieties which many have expressed and when we come to that amendment no doubt we shall go over that ground. However, what we are not prepared to contemplate is any suggestion that an elderly tenant should be prevented from buying his home solely or principally on the grounds of his age. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, must know that for that reason her amendment is unacceptable, although, as she said, the references to design and special adaptation do make it somewhat narrower than the one which she tabled at Committee stage. But it would exclude elderly tenants from the right to buy in many cases, even where the dwelling-house,

27
in spite of minor design features or adaptations, was not genuinely sheltered for special needs housing in the sense of the exclusion in paragraph 4 of the schedule. They could be excluded, for example, if they lived in a development of smaller dwellings which, although they might have been built with the elderly in mind, and normally let to tenants of pensionable age, might have little about them which differed from ordinary housing suitable for occupation by tenants of any age.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, can we just establish, at the very beginning of this debate, that the elderly, by Act of Parliament, are persons over the age of 80? That has never been declared before, but it was in an Act of Parliament relating to pensions. If we continue to talk about "the elderly" it is very confusing. The amendment distinctly says, "persons of pensionable age", which is a different proposition, and I think it would be most useful if throughout the debate the Minister would refer to the group we are actually talking about.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, no doubt it would have been equally useful if perhaps the previous speakers had given the same definition. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness leads me on to the points that were made by various speakers and this in fact is one of the very points that I wanted to make. What are we talking about when we speak of "the elderly"? For that matter what type of accommodation are we talking about? The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, quite rightly talked of housing people who were—I think she said "accommodation for fit people". She referred to hundreds of thousands of units of accommodation which would be excluded. She is absolutely right. If this amendment were carried, that is exactly what would be the consequence: hundreds of thousands of people, elderly by any definition that we might care to put, and it would not be people who were 80 or over. Where would noble Lords start to draw the line of "elderly"? What is "elderly"?
Several noble Lords: Pensioners!
Lord BELLWIN: Pensioners of 60 or 65, my Lords? Are we saying then that anybody of that age must henceforth not
28
have the same rights and, because they are of that age, they have to be disadvantaged as compared with anybody else?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must ask the Minister to give way. He seems to have forgotten that the amendment says that the houses have to be specially designed and adapted. That is the whole point.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as it happens, speaker after speaker in no way referred to that. If I am answering on this amendment, I am equally entitled, so far as I am aware, to make reference to the points that others have made, and just about everyone who has spoken has referred to the elderly in the most general of terms. They have referred to housing, which if we think about it, goes way beyond even the 300,000 or 400,000 that the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, mentioned, because housing of one- or two-bedroomed accommodation—and that is what we are talking about—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, that is the accommodation to which one assumes we refer when we speak of housing for the elderly. We do not think of it as three or four bedrooms or more; we think of one or two bedrooms, and therefore by definition if we pass this amendment we should be excluding accommodation—I have given way several times and perhaps I may be allowed to finish my speech because there will be an opportunity for others to speak afterwards, I am sure. This is really the kernel of it. What we are talking about here is an exclusion of hundreds of thousands—indeed, it may be more—of one- or two-bedroomed units of accommodation. Either one believes in the right of people to buy or one does not, and this Government are committed to giving a right to buy, and we would be most concerned if there were such a broad massive exclusion of this kind, well-intentioned though it might be. The effect would be to go well beyond what many of those on this side of the House believe that it should mean.
Referring to some of the other comments that have been made, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that it would be better that old people should not

29
be able to buy at all. That is fundamental. We believe that it is better that they should be able to buy. I repeat, because I believe that it is worthy of emphasis, we do not want old people to be in any way disadvantaged. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for what he said. It is a fact that the ADC had expressed great concern, and we have tried to meet that concern by means of the pre-emption conditions. Pre-emption means (if I say it again for 10 years) that if the person concerned who has bought wishes to resell, then it is up to the local authority or the housing association; they will have the opportunity to buy back within 10 years. I think that is a considerable move.
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate, to whom I always listen very carefully, said that we must protect and defend the rights of aged persons. I suggest with the greatest respect that that is exactly what we are seeking to do by giving them these rights. He suggested that places secured in this way might be put into jeopardy. Then you have the debate, my Lords, about what happens to housing stock when a person occupies it as an owner rather than as a tenant. I would be the first to concede that there is a marginal difference between an elderly person occupying it as an owner rather than a tenant and the position when a younger person does so, because with a younger person—so far as I am concerned there is no question about it—there is no difference whatsoever. There is a marginal difference when elderly persons occupy it, but it is only marginal, and at the end of the day the effect upon the totality of housing can only be marginal.
My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken and have referred to their concern to allow people to go on living independently. In what way is this going to detract from their ability to live independently? In what way does this send aged persons into homes and hostels when they would not otherwise be going in?
I can only say, to conclude, that this is a difficult point. I said so when I talked about it before and no doubt I shall be saying so when I talk about it again
30
on Amendment No. 23; but what we have to do is to see that there is a balance to enable the community to provide one- and two-bedroom units of accommodation. This is quite apart from specialised accommodation for elderly persons. On the other hand, there is the necessity to ensure that old people or people of pensionable age are not disadvantaged. The decision is your Lordships'. So far as I am concerned, I do not see that by giving people the right that the Government are seeking to give them there would be disadvantage of this kind. At the most, it can only be at the periphery, and in the totality of what we are seeking to do I believe the case—and I have as much concern as anyone else—is an overwhelming case.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think the time has come to round up the debate, as the Minister has now answered. only want to take about one minute, to say first that what I am going to ask the House to vote on is my amendment which refers to specially designed, specially adapted houses, which, by the DOE's own figures, refers to about 220,000 people. I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in support of it, but whether they went wider than the amendment is not relevant at this point.
The only other point I would make is that I think the question of resources is extremely relevant because the moment this Bill becomes law people who have been in their accommodation for three years will immediately have the right to buy. So we do not have to wait for 10 years. Furthermore, with inflation as it is, it is going to be very much more expensive to build specially adapted and designed houses. I think this should be kept in mind.
My Lords, I think we have had a very long and fruitful debate. I intend to press the Division, and I beg to move.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fulton, L.

Oram, L.

Amherst, E.

Gage, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Amory, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Pargiter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Garner, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gifford, L.

Plant, L.

Bacon, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Reilly, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Rhodes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Roberthall, L.

Beswick, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seebohm, L.

Blyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Spens, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hunt, L.

Stamp, L.

Byers, L.

Hylton, L.

Stedman, B.

Clancarty, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Clwyd, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathspey, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Leonard, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany. L.

Eldon, E.

London, Bp.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wigoder, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Milverton, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Monson, L.

Wootton of of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Moyne, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Effingham, E.

Middleton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Avon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Barnby, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Belstead, L.

Glendevon, L.

Robbins, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grimstone of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Bessborough, E.

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

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Boyd of Merton, V.

Savile, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Halsbury, E.

Sharples, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Hatherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cawley, L.

Ironside, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trenchard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Daventry, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Vivian, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Denham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLY
4.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (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 this afternoon in another place on the telecommunications monopoly. The Statement runs:
"The present rapid growth of telecommunications and of information technology provides immense opportunities for the industries connected with telecommunications. Over the coming years the majority of British households will be affected. Whole new industries and sub-industries and many new jobs will be created.
"These developments have been under way for a longer time in the United States and have gathered more momentum there than here. I am sure that one of the reasons for America's greater success has been the freedom available there to entrepreneurs to develop new services and a wide range of equipment associated with telecommunications. The opportunities and the market are too great to be encompassed by a single organisation, however skilled and however great its resources.
"For these reasons I announced last September that the Government would be reviewing British Telecommunications' present monopolies over the supply of terminal equipment attached to the telecommunications network and over the provision of services to third parties using British Telecommunications circuits. Following widespread consultation with interested parties, the Government have reached the following conclusions.
"First, we are going to make it very much easier for equipment supplied by the private sector, including all private branch exchanges, to be attached to the network. Subject to a transitional period of about three years, there will be freedom to attach and maintain independently approved equipment which meets the necessary technical standards. The only exceptions will be
34
the supply, installation and maintenance of the first telephone and associated wiring connected directly to the main network, and the maintenance of private branch exchanges and associated wiring, for which British Telecommunications will remain responsible. This substantial change will give the business and domestic customer a wider range of equipment from which to choose and should remove many of the bottlenecks resulting from the Post Office's present exclusive privilege of supplying such equipment.
"Secondly, we are going to allow people more freedom to use British telecommunications' circuits to offer services to third parties which are not currently provided by British Telecommunications, for example in the data processing field. I expect this change to lead to a significant growth in information, data transmission, educational and entertainment services provided over telephone circuits and to the emergence of new businesses. I have also decided to commission an independent economic assessment of the implications of allowing complete liberalisation for what are commonly referred to as value added network services.
"Thirdly, I am exploring the scope for allowing the private sector to provide telecommunications transmission services such as satellite business systems.
"Legislation will be introduced next Session which will make provision for relaxing the monopoly. British Telecommunications will be free to compete with the private sector but to ensure fair competition the Government intend to take powers to require it, where appropriate, to create a separately accounting subsidiary or subsidiaries where it is in competition with the private sector. We shall welcome partnerships with private capital in these subsidiaries.
"I hope that the first fruits of these changes will be manifest within a year or so from now and that they can be fully phased in over the next three years. I look forward to seeing at an early stage approved extension telephones on sale in the shops, as well as greater com-

35
petition in the installation and wiring of currently approved apparatus on business premises. The changes will bring new opportunities and challenges both for British Telecommunications and the telecommunications industry and I hope both will respond positively to this greater freedom. They will have the opportunity to expand their range of products to compete successfully both at home and in world markets, and I look forward to the associated development of new enterprises and industries.
"I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a memorandum giving fuller details of these proposed changes."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement. In fact the Memorandum to which I have just referred is in the Printed Paper Office.
4.10 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. I think it is true that the success of British Telecommunications will depend to a large extent on its ability to invest a considerable amount in itself, and, of course, for some time now this investment has been limited to the profits which it has been able to generate internally.
It is certainly true at the present time that France and Germany are investing roughly twice as much as the United Kingdom in the internal telecommunications system. If, as the Statement envisages, one is going to cream off some of the profitable sections of the telecommunications industry, it will be that much more difficult for sufficient money to be generated to enable there to be sufficient investment.
It is, of course, true that the greater part, shall I say?, or some of the most profitable sections of the telecommunications industry are the "add on" bits which it is proposed to hive off. One might well wonder and ask how the consumer himself would benefit if it is going to become that much more difficult for British Telecommunications to generate its own investment.
36
My Lords, the policy of the Post Office for many years has been to buy British, and what is envisaged in this Statement is that there should be much greater competition, which would let in a substantial amount of foreign competition. This could have severe effects on parts of the British telecommunications manufacturing industry. One could envisage a situation in which there might be redundancies and closures. But, my Lords, I was gratified to read in the Memorandum which the Minister stated was in the Printed Paper Office, that in fact it is proposed that this will be phased over a period of three years and that the Government will be seeking the provision of reciprocal trading opportunities for British manufacturers overseas. One would hope that the implication of that clause—and perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify this—would be that if in fact Japanese instruments are to be allowed into this country to be installed as the second and subsequent instruments, this will only happen if there is a reciprocal agreement so that we are in as favourable a position for exporting such equipment overseas.
When the legislation is brought before it in the new Session, I think the House will want to look very carefully at these proposals. Certainly there is a very great amount of detail in them, particularly the detail in the Memorandum here, and this will have to be scrutinised very carefully.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place, and to ask him to confirm what I take to be the fact from the Statement, that the monopoly in the provision of the network will be maintained intact. That seems to me an essential requirement. With that proviso, however, we would very much welcome the opportunity for private sector initiatives in the provision of equipment. The monopoly on equipment has without doubt slowed down the development of what should be a rapidly expanding industry. Those of us who have attempted, for example, to get an Ansaphone and have been told that the Post Office's charge would be £8 a week for what is a glorified tape recorder, must be very glad to hear that there is to

37
be private enterprise introduced sector.
I should like especially to underline how important it is that this move should give an impetus to a new developing electronics industry, the kind of industry in which jobs in the future are to be found. As the Minister said in the Statement, this should create new jobs and new businesses. This must be so. It is vitally important that we should get into this business now and not wait, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, behind a tariff wall to develop our new equipment, but get into it now so that our industry can compete effectively with the Japanese industry in the provision of these parts.
I should like also to add that this seems to me to offer opportunities for new jobs of a rather different order. That is to say, with the widespread use of equipment of this kind, far more people will he able, in their own homes, to undertake work which depends on telecommunications equipment of one sort and another. This facility already exists but it could be expanded very considerably with more equipment available. There are already many people, particularly women, who are using these devices to earn money in their own homes, and this is a good line which could he extended very considerably when this equipment becomes more readily and cheaply available.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, if I may take first the very helpful Statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, she has done my job for me. It is for the reason which she explained so clearly that we have introduced this policy and believe in it very strongly indeed. I can confirm to her nevertheless that it is our intention to keep the integrity of the Post Office basic network intact, as it is, and that goes through to the first telephone and it goes through to the approval and in some cases the installation of complicated wiring with exchanges. I think this once again shows that after taking evidence from all parties we have introduced a sensible, practical and moderate approach to this problem.
My Lords, so far as the three years is concerned—and the noble Baroness encouraged me to speed it—an industry that has not been free to compete and to
38
supply the many forms of gadgetry which we intend to free up, is not immediately ready to supply where some other countries are ready. The three-year phasing programme is essential, in our view, to give British industry an opportunity to prepare for this.
Yes, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, by "reciprocity" we mean exactly what he has described; that is our objective. He will know, as I do, that there are complicated international arrangements. We are not fully master of some of them, but our clear intention is to ensure that if we liberalise our market others will be asked to do the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned our lack of investment. I was not sure whether he was talking of private investment or Government investment. On private investment, to invest when there is a monopoly situation in your home market, and it is difficult to supply, is obviously a discouragement. So far as Government investment is concerned, this is something that I have looked at over and over again, and it is not so clear that in this area we are not by one means and another helping our technology to be pulled forward; the schemes that are available are considerable and will be there to encourage investment over the future period.
I would say to the noble Lord that we do not believe we are in danger of allowing a creaming off of the most profitable parts of the telecommunications network; indeed, the basic network stands. It is true that profits currently are greater on the long distance telephone calls than on the local ones. But both of those will stand as they are at present.
The added value services depend upon a leased wire whether they are for computers to communicate with computers or with other organisations. The rentals for the leasing of those wires must clearly be set for the Post Office and its new subsidiaries and for private enterprise at a reasonable level. So, at present, we see no risk of any substantial creaming off. We believe that British Telecommunications should he able to continue to develop the efficiency of its essential network.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, the users will be very pleased to hear that statement. If one asks for a telephone in the United States one gets it the next day However, in Oxford, it takes about 18 months. Meanwhile, if one wants a telex installed in London, at present it can take up to 18 months, during which time the business in question is not in proper communication. Can my noble friend say whether a business which is waiting for a new telex and which has been told that it will take about 18 months, can now expect to have the telex in a much shorter time, or are we to expect the complete sorting out of this problem to take perhaps three years?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is between the two. The legislation which this Statement heralds will be introduced early in the next Session and thus large parts of it, including all the supplying of instruments and extensions, will start to be able to be put into operation in about a year from now.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although his Statement will be generally welcomed it must still be recognised that it is a very tentative and rather nervous step? Even as regards the first installation of the first telephone, why should the monopoly exist? There is the question of electricity: private enterprise, with the central board, could put in the lines which are needed. There is the same situation with water and other public services. Why should the telephone be kept under restrictive monopoly, which will keep down the enterprise which will bring about what my noble friend wants—that is, the extra business and the extra energy? It is a first step, and let us hope that it is only a first step and that this is not the end of the road.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, my noble friend wishes us to go further. Most countries retain a monopoly situation as regards their basic network. The United States did go as far as liberalising the first instrument but it has run into a certain number of quite serious problems as a result. For example, it is difficult for a householder to know whether it is, in fact, the first instrument that has failed which has been put in by a private supplier and is due to be maintained by him, or
40
whether it is the network that has failed. No such problem will arise in the British situation. It will be clear to the householder either that the network has failed —in which case he can ring British Telecommunications—or that the instrument on the extension is not working, because the prime instrument will still be working. So I think that we have steered a middle road.
As regards added value services, the Statement made clear that my right honourable friend is prepared to consider going further than the first steps announced.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, can we be assured that the fair competition between the public and the private sector will also extend to advertising practices?— because BT will be in the position that the electricity boards are in at present; namely, of sending out bills four times a year to all their subscribers. There will be temptation to yield to what some of the electricity boards are doing now—that is, to include leaflets with their bills advertising equipment which they have for sale. That is very unfair competition because at present postage rates it would cost the private sector a fortune to indulge in direct mail advertising on this scale. I hope that this point will be borne in mind when the proposed Bill is prepared.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, we shall bear the noble Lord's point in mind in the discussions which will be taking place with all parties.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, we sincerely hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give us some assurance in regard to the effect that these new peripherals, these new value-added services, will have on the central network itself. Quite clearly, if there is to be an extensive use of these items—and that, of course, is what the Government's statement envisages—then there will be some extra load on the central circuit system itself and also upon its equipment. We would like to have some assurance that that has been taken into account. because, if there are additional modifications and alterations that have to be made in the central system, particularly in its carrier system, it will need a considerable amount of money. We should like to be assured that adequate investment or

41
permission to invest will be given to the ordinary telecom system.
As regards frequency transmisson, will the noble Viscount give us an assurance that the implication of the existing wave allocation system has been taken fully into account?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that both points have been taken into account.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, in the Statement kindly read by the noble Viscount the Minister, he referred to the privilege of the Post Office telecommunications in supplying its own equipment. Am I correct in saying that the telecommunication side of the Post Office does not manufacture its own equipment and that it supplies equipment on design and safety provisions that it lays down? In view of the new outlook for private companies, do I take it that the telecommunications side will now be enabled to manufacture its own equipment, which it has requested over very many years?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am not entirely clear about the answer to that point. However, I undertake to write to the noble Lord on the matter.

HOUSING BILL
4.28 p.m.
Consideration on Report continued.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 105, line 22, at end insert—
("5. The dwelling-house has been provided under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act 1944 or the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act 1945.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment deals with the problem of temporary housing, the prefab type of housing, and it is supported by the AMA. The concern of the authorities is that accommodation originally constructed as a temporary measure at the end of the Second World War and intended to have a limited life, will be subject to the right to buy within the current proposals. The amendment is intended to exclude
42
dwellings commonly known as prefabs which at the time of construction were intended to have a life of 10 years. While the majority of temporary accommodation has now been cleared, there remains a small number of such properties throughout the country, although most authorities are gradually clearing them as they become vacant.
The Association and other organisations consider that it is inappropriate to extend the right to buy to accommodation which was built for a temporary life only and where the intended life has been exceeded, and where authorities are, in general, clearing such properties when the occupants move. It would seem that if they do get the security of ownership, then when the authorities want to re-develop, they will be put to considerably more trouble and expense. I beg to move.
Lord BELLW1N: My Lords, one would have to say that this, of course, is another amendment designed to chip away at the right to buy, because it would exclude all housing provided under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Acts of 1944 and 1945. We have heard that there will be all sorts of problems for local authorities if these dwellings are sold. However, although prefabs in general have been remarkably popular with tenants over the years, let us remember that they are temporary dwellings which are now over 20 years old, and most of them will now be at or near the end of their useful lives.
Even bearing in mind that valuations might be correspondingly low, I wonder whether tenants will buy these dwellings. Anyone who considered it would certainly be wise to think very carefully and to take expert advice before doing so. For although there may be circumstances in which it might not be in the tenant's interest to exercise his right to buy, it would be neither fair nor practical to try to take away the right to buy from tenants of all the 1944 prefabs. That might ensure that none of them bought where it would be unwise for them to do so, but it would also prevent any of them from buying where it might still be perfectly reasonable to do so. I suggest that that would be unfair and unacceptable. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider the further point, that in many cases it will not be the value of the prefab but the value of the site that will be the attraction. Having regard to what single-house property sites cost these days, if there is a site of a reasonable size with drainage, road access, lighting and everything else provided, it would be a very great temptation to want to buy it? You would get the odd ones bought in particular places which very often would prohibit the local authority doing proper redevelopment of the area. I think that that in itself would be undesirable.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, I do not think that in any way that does other than make the case for resisting the amendment. I was trying to be helpful to the point of saying that I had reservations as to the extent to which it would he used. I hope I also stressed that the key factor in the Government's objection to the amendment was that we did not want to remove the right to buy. As the noble Lord said, it may be that people will want to do it not so much because of the unit itself, but because of the worth of the land on which it is sited. Leaving aside the fact that most of them are rather small sites, even so, I still believe that it is the right with which we are concerned; it is the right that we have promised; it is the right to which we are committed, and that is why we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think that the reply is very satisfactory and I think that my noble friend Lord Pargiter made a very good point. However, I do not propose to press my luck on this, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 5, line 34, after ("years") insert ("or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which the exception in paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies, for such shorter term as is required by that paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2A, and with the leave of the House at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12A
44
and 18, which are consequential. The purpose of these amendments is to remove from the Bill a grave anomaly—one which, unless rectified, will impose an extremely heavy burden upon local authorities in years to come. What is more, it will also impose a very heavy burden on certain of those tenants, or rather their heirs and successors, who opt to buy their flats, as I shall demonstrate in a moment.
The anomaly in question is the requirement for all local authorities to grant applicants leases of 125 years or more whenever the lease is granted, whether it be granted in 1980, 1985, 1990 or, for that matter, 2030. This means that in regard to blocks of flats with a demonstrably limited life—and, remember, many blocks of flats in existence today were built 50, 60, 70 and even 80 years ago—the leases could fall in, not all at the same time so that the local authority could redevelop efficiently by demolishing the out-of-date and possibly even structurally-dangerous buildings and replacing them with modern, purpose-built blocks; but instead the leases will fall in at widely varying dates, in theory possibly as much as 100 years or more apart.
In the private sector this would be considered sheer insanity. In the private sector the length of long leases of flats in a single block is always geared so that they all fall in at the same time. These amendments will ensure that when local authority flats are sold the same sensible, practical, financially-prudent practice is followed. This is why virtually every respected professional body in the country which has anything to do with
finance or with property supports these amendments. I would instance the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, which is, of course, Conservative-controlled, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, numerous local authorities—Conservative local authorities just as much as Labour-controlled ones —and many distinguished and experienced estate agents and land agents.
There is a further point to consider. I mentioned that if the Bill is unamended, it could backfire upon the tenant who buys his flat, or perhaps backfire upon his sons and daughters, or grandsons

45
and granddaughters. This is because those few lessees who remain in an old and crumbling block of flats which is well past its prime but which cannot be redeveloped, will find themselves paying a larger and larger sum each year by way of their share of the service charge in order literally to prop up the structure of an outdated and possibly dangerous building. There are, additionally, immense complications in the case of partnership schemes entered into by developers in conjuction with local authorities, where council flats have been built above shops with a limited life as a quid pro quo for getting planning permission in the first place. As the Housing Centre Trust has asked:
"How could local authorities cater with limited resources for a limitless life for a flat in a block already 50 years old, or difficult to let, or with newly-discovered design faults?"
We all know about the design faults—the alumina cement and the number of post-war council blocks that have already been demolished for one reason or another.
When objections were raised in the Commons to the Bill as drafted, the astonishingly frivolous reply that apparently came from the Conservative side was that it did not really matter which side got its way in the debate, as all those who were taking part would be dead by the time difficulties started arising. I am sure that on reflection noble Lords on the Conservative Benches will agree that such an attitude does not really conform with traditional Conservative values. Surely all serious and respected political parties in this country are united, in wanting to put the important, long-term interests of future generations above short-term political considerations. Not that I believe for a moment that to grant leases of 122, 119, 114, or 108 years would lose the Conservative Party any votes to speak of, particularly when people appreciate the sensible aspect of changing the Bill. It is rare indeed to find so many respected professional bodies united in favour of this series of amendments. I hope that the Government will, therefore, accept them. If not, I hope that your Lordships will support me in the Division Lobby.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the intention of these amendments was to provide that where tenants of flats bought their flats under the right to buy, the leases
46
of the flats in a particular block should all fall in at the same time. The Government now accept that it is right to provide for this. However, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has moved, seems to us to be unsatisfactory. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the Government's amendments on the supplementary Marshalled List have the same effect and substantially meet the representations made on the need for coterminus leases in blocks of flats. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle of co-terminus leases. This is something to which I drew attention earlier in the Bill, pointing out the rigidity of the 125-year requirement. Speaking as a chartered surveyor and as a trustee of a charitable estate whose property is almost entirely let out on long leases—both residential and commercial—I only hope that the Government's amendments are really watertight and will meet the case.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because I felt as he did, that it was a quite anomalous situation and that in addition it would make great difficulties for the management and maintenance of flats, particularly the communal part. I am afraid that I have only just seen the supplementary Marshalled List, but if this covers the points raised by the noble Lord and if he is satisfied, then I am happy as well.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I, too, have only just understood—or half understood—the amendment set out in the list supplementary to the Marshalled List. If the noble Lord tells me that it has the desired effect, then there is nothing more to add and I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to accept this principle. Therefore, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 2B:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert ("(subject to paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to this amendment and also to Amendments Nos. 12AZ and 18B. First, I should like to acknowledge that these amendments are intended to achieve the same result as amendments already tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I am grateful to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and, I suspect, also to my noble friend Lord Hylton, who is not here. Maybe I am wrong about that. The Government have been convinced that the Bill should include such a provision. As there were technical difficulties over the wording of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, we felt it was right to table Government amendments even though it had to be done at the last moment.
The main amendment is to Schedule 2. This provides that once one flat in a block has been leased under the provisions of the Bill for a term of 125 years or more than any subsequent lease of another flat in that block under the right to buy may terminate at the same time as the lease on the first flat. This would apply whether the first flat had been sold under the right to buy or voluntarily under the powers in Part I of the Bill.
Amendment No. 2B to Clause 6 makes the necessary adjustment to the assumptions made on the valuation of the second or further flat. Amendment No. 12AZ is a consequential amendment to Clause 16, and the provision as to the term of the lease which a landlord is bound to grant on a flat. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 2C:
Page 5, line 38, after ("annum") insert ("for the first 33 years of the term; £20 per annum for the second 33 years of the term, £40 per annum for the third 33 years of the term, and £80 per annum for the remainder of the term.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2C, and with the leave of the House I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 18A. First, I should like to apologise to the House on having so many of my amendments on a list supplementary to the marshalled list, which I appreciate makes them rather difficult to follow. It takes
48
a great deal of time for those of us without the power of Government at our elbow or legal expertise at our fingertips to draft effective and, with luck, cast-iron amendments to such a wide-ranging and complex Bill.
Although I moved a slightly similar amendment in Committee I want to emphasise that this is not an attempt to bring in a supplementary service charge by the back door, since the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has now more or less succeeded in convincing me that service charges are already adequately provided for in Schedule 2 to the Bill and elsewhere. Like the previous amendment, it is simply an attempt to make the Bill conform more with what one believes to be Conservative principles by making these provisions more businesslike and efficient and less wasteful, by providing some protection against inflation for the initial ground rent of £10. When we discussed the question of ground rent in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Evans, rightly pointed out that it might well be more economic to charge a peppercorn, and I must say that if this amendment is not accepted I am inclined to agree with him.
£10 in 125 years' time at 3 per cent, inflation would be worth only 25p. At 5 per cent, inflation it would be worth only 2¼p, and at 10 per cent. inflation it would be worth 0·00067p. My very modest amendment effectively indexes the ground rent to the extremely modest degree of 2 per cent. inflation. If, therefore, as we hope, inflation were by some miracle brought down to only 5 per cent. the 2¼p that the £10 would be worth at the end of 125 years would, as a result of my amendment, be raised to 18p, which would just about cover the cost of a stamp and envelope even if not the clerical cost of sending out the demand. Of course, it is possible to argue that we will not have stamps in 125 years' time and everything would be done by direct debit, but even so I cannot believe that the cost of getting the amount from the tenant would be less than 18p in real terms.
It is not I who am being radical or proposing anything out of the ordinary, but the Government if they fail to accept this amendment. Every single lease in the private sector today, and indeed for the past 10 years or more, has included

49
provisions for the indexation of the ground rent, usually once every 33 years or sometimes once every 25 years. Therefore, by accepting this amendment the Government would be simply following normal commercial practice.
If the Government succeed in bringing down inflation over the next 12 months to 15 per cent., and then subsequently to 10 per cent. for the rest of their period in office—and I do not think realistically they expect any more than that—then by the latest time that the next general election can take place in April 1984, £10 will already have fallen to £6·71 in real terms, so it can be seen that already the value of the initial ground rent is being eroded. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look extremely favourably upon this amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for bringing this forward. The Government are in a sense, the author of their own difficulties here. If they mean a nominal rent, even in these inflationary days £10 is not a nominal sum of money. If they mean a nominal rent it would be better if they were to say either a peppercorn or, if you come from the county palatine of Lancaster, one red rose, or possibly for the noble Lord the Minister one white rose. They ought to make their minds up whether they mean a nominal rent or a rent that represents value. If they do, I think the noble Lord's amendment should be supported. If they mean a nominal rent, why do not they say so?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in making his inflationary forecasts is speaking for himself. Certainly I must dissociate myself from any such forecast he makes. May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that he might also have referred to the possibility of a leek being used. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, put down amendments at Committee stage designed to allow for inflation in the imposition of ground rents on flats sold under the right to buy. He has now modified his proposals. The suggested rent would rise from £10 to £80 instead of from £25 to £400. However, I still believe that it is unnecessary to provide for an increase in the ground rent. The noble Lord, Lord
50
Monson, said at Committee stage that he thought it would be better if local authorities could impose a service charge on flats sold under the right to buy, but failing this he urged the Government to consider his amendments which would try to maintain the real value of the ground rent. Since then I have written to the noble Lord to assure him that local authorities may levy service charges on such sales.
I did in fact explain this in Committee, but I am afraid that the hour and the pressure we were under to make progress did not allow me to take this rather complicated point at a pace which made it easy to follow. Rather than repeat myself at length, perhaps it would be best if I give noble Lords the Hansard reference for my explanation, being 26th June at cols. 1859 and 1860. All I would add to this is that paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 18 applies the provisions relating to service charges to flats sold under the right to buy.
The noble Lord's amendments would make allowance for inflation in the ground rent of flats sold on 125
year leases under the right to buy. I said in Committee that the ground rent—and I think this is really the major point—is not designed to secure a continuing income for the ground landlord but merely to represent in a necessarily token way his continuing interest in the land. I resisted the noble Lord's amendments in Committee for this reason. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has now indeed modified his amendment since Committee stage in such a way as to moderate the increase in the ground rent, as I have said.
My reason for rejecting them, however, was that there is no need for any sort of increase in the ground rent. I have to say that this remains the Government's view, and that these amendments are no more acceptable than the earlier ones. I was interested in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made about a ground rent, a peppercorn rent, or whatever, but I fear that on this point the Government will not want to move. I wonder if, in the light of that, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in that I think he might concede that this is probably not one of the major points that he raises, is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I concede of course that this is not one of the major

51
points in the Bill, but I think the Government are being rather shortsighted over it. It is rather like the response in another place to the previous issue we were discussing; namely, we shall all be dead before the trouble becomes apparent. The noble Lord said this represents just a token payment. In fact, it is an uneconomic token payment because once the lease is about one-quarter the way through it will become more expensive to collect the ground rent than not to collect it, and that cannot be sensible. Auditors will not allow local authorities merely to wash their hands of it but will insist on reminder letters being sent out, and it will cost a great deal more to extract these sums from rather slow payers than the income itself. However, the House being quite thin and, without a great number of noble Lords to support me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Discount]:
4.51 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 32, leave out from ("to") to second ("the") and insert ("the following provisions of this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. There will be occasions when a secure tenant dies and the surviving husband or wife takes over as secure tenant of the marital home. These amendments are concerned with the effect of such a change on the terms on which a surviving spouse can exercise the right to buy. Their intention is to help widows and widowers.
As the Bill is drafted, spouses' entitlement to discount may be taken into account under Clause 7(6)(a) only if the secure tenant and spouse are living in the same dwelling as their only or principal home when a notice is served claiming to exercise the right to buy. This clearly would prevent a deceased spouse's entitlement from being invoked. In many cases this would make little or no difference to the discount which the spouse who
52
became a secure tenant on the death of a husband or wife could claim; time spent in secure tenancies with the now dead husband or wife could in any event be claimed under Clause 7(5)(a) as a period during which the new secure tenant was the spouse of a secure tenant.
But there could be a case, for example where the widow had been married to a now deceased secure tenant for only 10 years out of his total 20 years' secure tenancy, and her discount entitlement would as a result be lower than his would have been. Elsewhere in the Bill the principle followed has been that the right to buy is rightly to be regarded as the property of the marriage partnership rather than one particular partner who is a secure tenant. Thus, Clause 1(5) allows a widow or widower who becomes a secure tenant on the death of a spouse to count the spouse's period of entitlement under Clause 1(3) towards his or her own qualification to exercise the right to buy. We have concluded, following this principle, that a widow or widower becoming a secure tenant on a spouse's death should be entitled to discount terms which are no less favourable than those on which the couple would have been able to buy had they done so together before the bereavement, and these amendments will achieve that.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 accordingly add to the period to be taken into account in determining discount under Clause 7 periods during which the secure tenant's deceased spouse was a secure tenant or the spouse of a secure tenant. The effect of this is qualified by Amendment No. 5, which restricts the circumstances in which such periods may be claimed to cases where the present secure tenant became a secure tenant on the death of his or her spouse. This is intended to ensure that the couple's right to buy was the joint asset of a genuine marriage partnership at the time when the deceased spouse died.
For the same reason both spouses are required to have been occupying the dwelling-house as their only or principal home at the time of the death. This helps to ensure that discount is not claimed, for example, in respect of a marriage which has actually ended with the partners living separately but not yet divorced. These are small but important

53
and humane amendments which prevent hard cases which might otherwise arise over widows' and widowers' entitlement to discount, and I am sure your Lordships will be glad to see them in the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, these are complicated and technical amendments, except for lawyers. Even though the Minister explained them, I am sure, with clarity, may I ask if it means that under Amendment No. 5 the period is or is not taken into account? In other words, if a man dies and his wife then becomes the tenant and she has lived in the house with him jointly for a number of years, does that count towards her residence for the right to buy and towards the discount time? I gather from the nod of assent of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that it does. What, then, happens in the case of a common law wife or a live-in friend—or whatever expression one wishes to use—where two people have been in a stable relationship for many years?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the answer to the latter question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is that to the best of my knowledge I should not have thought that would have applied. I am, however, open to correction on that and I shall, if I may, confirm or otherwise my answer a little later. I am not absolutely sure, but I should not have thought it would apply.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I should like to know how far on in time this goes, my Lords. I have an example of a widow who was the tenant and remarried and then died, then the husband became the tenant and remarried and his wife became the tenant, and this has gone on for some time. They have been protected right through. Does the same rule apply? In other words, for how long in time does this situation continue?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should have thought in the case the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, cites that if the husband had gone on marrying different people, as it were, for one reason or another (there may have been divorces, or nature may have taken its course, and so on) the wife who was living when he eventually died—which might be sooner rather than
54
later in those circumstances—would acquire his time in occupation.
Baroness PHILLIPS: To the third or only the second, my Lords?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should have thought it would go on. If he has had many wives—all legally entitled, of course—I should have thought they would all qualify on the back of his time of tenure for such discount as might apply. That would be my interpretation, but should the position be otherwise, I undertake to notify the noble Baroness.
Baroness JEGER: My Lords, supposing two spouses have been living together for about 40 years and then, just before the death of one or the other, one of them goes off for a bit of a party with somebody else. At what point does that disenfrancise the delinquent spouse from being regarded as eligible under the clause?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it would depend on what kind of a party it was. If it was the kind of party which was just one of those things that comes and goes, then I think it would have no effect whatever. If, however, it was the kind of party which resulted in, say, the husband departing the marital home indefinitely, if he was then to die I should have thought the wife, who in our hypothetical case I am assuming remained in the house, would be entitled to his time of tenure as a qualifying basis. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, if I am wrong I will let the noble Baroness know, but I suspect I am not wrong on this one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 35, after ("spouse") insert ("or deceased spouse").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8:
Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
("(aa) no period during which the tenant's deceased spouse was a secure tenant or the spouse of a secure tenant shall be so taken into account unless the tenant became the

55
secure tenant on the death of his spouse and at the time of the death both occupied the dwelling-house as their only or principal home; and").
Page 7, line 10, at end insert ("or deceased spouse")
Page 7, line 28, after ("spouse") insert ("or deceased spouse")
Page 7, line 29, after ("is") insert ("(or was)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Repayment of discount on early disposal of freehold or lease]:
5 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 40, leave out from ("by") to ("for") in line 41 and insert ("a body specified in subsection (4A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 90 91, 92, 101, and 102, all of which are minor amendments. Clause 8 of the Housing Bill makes provision for the repayment of discount where a purchaser, under the right to buy, resells the dwelling-house within five years. This liability for repayment of discount on early disposal is deemed to take effect as a legal mortgage. There are two further equivalent provisions in the Bill; one is in Clause 91, and covers the case where a local authority voluntarily sells a council house at a discount, subject to a discount repayment liability. Clause 120 makes similar provision on the voluntary sale of a dwelling at a discount by a housing association.
As Clause 8 is drafted, if the landlord, the Housing Corporation, or a building society grants the purchaser a mortgage to finance the purchase, this mortgage takes priority over the mortgage securing the liability to repayment of discount. However, as the Bill stands, any mortgage granted by any other lender to finance the purchaser would rank in priority after the discount repayment mortgage.
So far as possible, we wish to encourage those who purchase houses from local authorities or housing associations to get
56
the mortgages they need from private sector lenders. In this way we seek to derive the maximum benefit to the public purse from the sale of council houses. Therefore, we have concluded that it would be right for certain other lenders' mortgages to be stated to have first priority under the Bill. Broadly speaking, these lenders are insurance companies, trustee savings banks, and banks as identified in the Home Purchase Assistance Act 1978, as recognised lending institutions for house purchase. Amendments Nos. 90, 91, and 92 achieve exactly the same result in relation to voluntary sales by local authorities.
It is also necessary to ensure, in regard to Clause 120, that a Housing Corporation mortgage will have first priority on a voluntary sale by a housing association. This is achieved by Amendments Nos. 101 and 102.
These amendments make the necessary changes to Clauses 8, 91, and 120. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 43, leave out from ("by") to end of line and insert ("that body.
(4A) The bodies referred to in subsection (4)(b) above are—

(a) the Housing Corporation;

(b) any building society; and

(c) any of the bodies specified in paragraph 6, 7 or 8 of the Schedule to the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Change of secure tenant after notice claiming right to buy or right to a mortgage]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("or the right to a mortgage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are procedural amendments to Clause 13, which governs what happens when there is a

57
change of secure tenant after the service of a notice claiming the right to buy. When the change of tenancy takes place the landlord may already have served a notice under Clause 10 which tells the tenant about the price to which he is entitled and, among other things, about his right to a mortgage. In all cases however the size of a mortgage to which an eventual purchaser is entitled will depend on his own circumstances. Where the tenancy changes after the service of a right to buy notice it will be the new tenant's income that will be relevant. He must therefore fill in a form giving details of his financial circumstances if he wishes to take up the right to a mortgage. Amendment No. 12 therefore provides that where a notice has already been served under Clause 10, a new form is to be sent to the new tenant. The new tenant would then have the normal three months to fill in and return the form. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 1 on page 13 and insert—
("(2) If a notice under section 10 of this Act has been served on the former tenant, the landlord shall serve on the new tenant a further form for his use in exercising the right to a mortgage and the new tenant may then serve a notice under section 12(1) within the period of three months beginning with the service on him of that form").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when dealing with the last amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Completion]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 12AZ:
Page 14, line 20, at end insert ("(subject to paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 2B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12A not moved.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("two years") and insert ("six months").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and the two following amendments are intended as attempts once more to do something about that rather outrageous creature, the option, which we very much dislike, since it comes on top of the discount, and the amendments provide different ways in which to minimise some of its extravagant effects. Amendment No. 13 seeks to reduce the period for which the option can be held from two years to six months. It appears that the Government are insisting on holding on to the option; they will not give it up, as I and many other people believe they should do. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the option is granted only in order to help people over a bridging period, which should be as short as possible.
I suppose that in those circumstances it could be argued that the provision is just about feasible, since it takes people about six months to organise their affairs in order to complete a sale. However, people should not be allowed a lengthy period of time that is not really consonant with the question of being able to find the small edge of the finance that they need. This matter is supposed to be clearly tied down, but our following amendments deal with it, since we do not accept the situation. The provision should be used merely to help people over the short bridging period.
The amendment would also avoid a situation which must arise if the Bill remains as it is at the moment. On certain occasions a number of people will take out options in a slaphappy fashion since, after all, they are not going to cost them anything. However, at the end of the two years' period, or even earlier, they may decide not to pursue the matter further. This may be because they still cannot afford to go ahead. The Minister may say that that point is covered in the Bill, but we do not accept that it is; hence the next amendment that we shall be moving. On the other hand, they may treat the matter almost as a status symbol, so that they can say that they have taken out an option to buy a house, even though after a period of two years they are not

59
likely to be in a position to complete the purchase. This situation seems to me to involve a rather unpleasant method of encouraging people to aspire to things that are beyond their means.
On the previous occasion we discussed this matter I raised a point to which I do not think I received an answer. I realise that at that time many questions were asked of the Minister, who has entered into considerable correspondence, but I think that this particular point has been overlooked. I asked the Minister what will be the cost of processing these applications. After all, if people apply for an option, someone has to file the application, or otherwise deal with it. There has to be correspondence, and I feel that much unnecessary expenditure will be involved. I beg to move.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, having spoken at Second Reading as strongly as I could about the unsatisfactory consequences of a combination of the discount and the option period, I should like to support this amendment. In moving it, the noble Baroness has touched on the effect of the present option on local authorities, and particularly on local authority staffs. I think that if her amendment is accepted there will be a great deal of saving of unnecessary administration, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Baroness in this amendment. I shall be happier still to support Amendment No. 15, which I think I am right in saying is an alternative to No. 13. In fact, I would have put down my name to Amendment No. 15 had I not suspected that the drafting may be imperfect. Noble Lords may be surprised to know that according to the Nationwide Building Society, in the two years from the autumn of 1977 to the autumn of 1979 house prices rose by no less than 63·7 per cent. Who can possibly deny that such a rise in house prices might not happen again? Suppose this were to occur between the autumn of 1980 and the autumn of 1982—and I am not trying to make a political point in saying that inflation and rising house prices occur only under one Government or another; I simply choose 1980 to
60
illustrate what might happen. Suppose the house were to be valued by the district valuer at £20,000 in the autumn of 1980, and a tenant entitled to a 50 per cent. discount put down an option to buy that house for £10,000. By the time he came to exercise his option in the autumn of 1982 the value of that house would have risen to £32,740, so his effective discount would be not 50 per cent. but just under 70 per cent.—69·46 per cent., to be precise. Similarly, someone entitled to a 33 per cent. discount would effectively receive a 59 per cent. discount if the rise in house prices were to be of this magnitude.
I fully recognise that the figures 33 per cent. and 50 per cent. were included in the Conservative manifesto. We had a Divsion on the discounts at Committee. We were defeated, albeit not by a very large margin, and we accept that, although I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Beliwin, and his colleagues on the Front Bench that in the interim an amazingly large number of Conservatives in the country —Conservatives who are involved in local government, particularly—have come up to me or have written to me and said how much they approved of my amendment; but that is by the by. However, it was not in the manifesto that effective discounts should vary between 59 and 70 per cent., which would be the case if we have a similar rise in house prices in the future to what we have had in the past and one or other of the amendments of the noble Baroness is not accepted.
I prefer Amendment No. 15 because I think it is a little fairer to those who are not able to get their deposit organised within six months. It still gives a pretty handsome discount. Effectively, the man in the first instance, instead of being able to get his £32,740 house for £10,000, would have to pay £13,185 for it, but that is still a discount of 59·73 per cent.— a good deal better than 50 per cent. Similarly, a person entitled to a 33 per cent. discount would effectively get a 46 per cent. one; so they are still doing a lot better by having the option than by not having it, but the public purse is not being hit to quite the same extent as would be the case if one or other of these amendments is not accepted.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I just say that if the same people who had written to the noble Lord, Lord Monson,

61
and expressed their concern had fully understood exactly what is being proposed in the Bill, they may perhaps have had less concern; and I shall try to make this point again, as I did at Committee stage. But before I do so perhaps I may comment briefly on one or two points that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made. She was concerned about people aspiring, as she said, to do things beyond their means, and then she went on to say that they will take out options in a slaphappy fashion. I have to remind your Lordships that one has to put £100 down, and if that is a status symbol, or whatever, it is one about the value of which there might be differing views.
One point I cannot answer her on—I should like to do so, but I cannot at this time—is her question about the cost of processing this. I do not have that information at the present time. But would suggest that in the context of what we are trying to do by giving this option it is not particularly important, and certainly I do not expect that it would be very significant. This is really the major point in this option matter, and I want to repeat it very carefully by saying that this is a tightly-drawn provision. It is not a wide open thing where anyone can come along and decide, "I will not buy now; I think T might do better, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, by hanging around for a couple of years, so I will leave it for that time; but I will put my £100 down". They cannot do that, because the right to have an option for deferred completion will be available only in limited circumstances; that is, where a tenant's mortgage entitlement would not enable him to buy immediately.
I have written to noble Lords who were anxious about this aspect of these proposals explaining to them that the only circumstances in which the right to deferred completion will arise are those in which the calculation of a purchaser's mortgage entitlement has been made and has shown him not to be entitled to a mortgage large enough to enable him to buy at once. In any event, I consider that most people will want to do so at once so that they can start paying off their mortgage, and so that the five years for discount-sharing begins to run soon. In the case of those whose resources are so small that they cannot get the mortgage entitlement that they need, I would have thought it was
62
very praiseworthy that they should then want to set about saving up, if you like, to get to the point where it was.
As to the life of the option, it must be long enough to fulfil its purpose; namely, that the tenant should know in advance the price at which he can buy while he saves the money to do so. As to what was said in election manifestos, I will not go into that now. If I have to come back further on this point I will quote what was said by different people, but I will not waste the time of the House in doing that now if it is not necessary. But the fact is that we were considering the possibility of whether the period should be two or three years, and it was said so openly. But after careful consideration we came to the conclusion that the two-year period was the right one—two years, that is, from when the tenant claims to exercise his right to buy. We believe that any shorter period than two years will be too short to make the option of any benefit.
Some time will inevitably elapse—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, touched on this—between a tenant's initial application and the date on which it becomes clear that he may have the option to complete at the fixed price within two years. If he is to be in any position to save or to take advantage of an improvement in his circumstances, the period of six months would be quite useless. I do not know, but there may be some who may feel that that would be a good thing; but, in any case, as I have said, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has made it clear that it is really the principle of these provisions that she dislikes, not the precise form that they take. I hope that I, too, have made the Government's position clear. We are firmly committed to the principle of the provisions embodied in Clause 16, and that is why we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that I not only dislike the principle, I dislike the way it has been done as well; I dislike it all. On the two years, I know the Minister said the same thing at Committee stage, that they had thought of three years and reduced it to two years. I am afraid that is rather like saying it was not an awfully big robbery, it is only a little tiny burglary—I mean on public funds; I am not talking about the Minister

63
personally, of course. I find it very unsatisfactory. All these amendments are attempts to find alternative ways to deal with the same problem, so I will withdraw this amendment in order to enable us to go on to the other one. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 3, leave out ("to be left outstanding or") and insert ("which he is entitled, or is treated as being entitled, to leave outstanding or have").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing forward this amendment again. I am not convinced that this is a tightly drawn provision, as the noble Lord said during Committee. He has used this phrase again today. He said it twice in Committee but even if he had said it three times I should not have believed it was true. It is clear from reading the Committee discussion on the £100 option, that many noble Lords were, to say the least, uneasy and fearful of abuse. The noble Lord undertook to look at it again and was good enough to write to me. In his letter he said he did not accept there was any danger of abuse of these provisions by those who may wish to delay completion, and he suggests that subsection (4)(b) of the clause, which is now Clause 16, ensures that only a tenant whose mortgage entitlement is too low to enable him to buy at once may defer completion. I cannot agree. I still think there is nothing in the clause as drafted which limits options to those who cannot afford to buy. It still appears to allow any purchaser simply to choose to delay for two years and thereby take advantage of the extra effective discount which would arise from avoiding house price rise over that period. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made very clear what an enormous extra discount that could give after two years.
As I said in Committee, it might be thought there would be difficulties in introducing the inherently subjective distinction between those who can and those who cannot afford to buy, but the Bill's existing provisions make exactly such a
64
distinction in relation to the right to a mortgage. Clause 9, subsections (I) to (4), define the amount which a tenant is entitled to leave outstanding or to have advanced to him, and Clause 9(5) gives local authorities discretion to treat him as entitled to leave outstanding a higher amount. My amendment, by introducing these concepts from Clauses 9 and 16, would ensure that the £100 option could be exercised only where a tenant had failed to qualify in terms of the Bill's own provisions for a mortgage large enough to enable him to buy immediately. Not only the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, but Mr. Stanley and Mr. Finsberg in another place have said they wish this provision to be tightly drawn, and therefore I can see no reason for the Government to resist this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, when we said that we wanted it to be tightly drawn and that we believed it to be tightly drawn, we did, and do, mean just that. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady David, saying that we believed that what is now Clause 16 as drafted provides that the right to defer completion was open only to those who could not afford to buy at once. Since then, however, I have received further advice on this matter. I should hate it to be thought that the Bill as drafted was defective, but in the light of the noble Baroness's advocacy, and possibly to her not inconsiderable surprise though I hope not displeasure, I am happy to tell her that in fact I am prepared to accept this amendment, and by so doing I may even convert those on the opposite Benches to the policy embodied in the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 29, after ("price") insert ("that price to be determined by adding half the difference between the value of the dwelling-house at the time of completion of the transaction and the value at the time the notice exercising the right to buy was served.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am encouraged, but I shall be rather surprised if I get support for this amendment, which is an attempt to do by price what my noble friend Lady Birk tried to do by time in Amendment No. 13. This amendment is an attempt to make a little

65
more realistic and sensible this option scheme and to prevent quite such a big present being handed to the prospective purchaser at the expense of the local authority, the ratepayers and the taxpayers; to make the "bonanza", as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek described it, not quite so attractive, and the whole thing less open to abuse.
As I said before, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made clear what tremendous gains could be made if house prices went on rising as they have been doing. We are suggesting that the price the tenant would have to pay would be determined by adding half the difference between the value of the house at the time of completion of the transaction and its value at the time the notice exercising the right to buy was served. This seems still quite generous to the purchaser and slightly fairer to everyone else. It is a compromise which I hope will get the support of the House. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, which I think in fact is rather fairer than Amendment No. 13. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, gave some good reasons why the six months' option period was a little bit too short. If I might follow on from some of the examples I gave when speaking to Amendment No. 13, if this amendment were accepted and assuming that the drafting is right—and if it is not it can surely be made right on Third Reading—that someone who is entitled to a 50 per cent. discount on a £20,000 house which rises by about the same percentage as has occurred between autumn 1977 and autumn 1979 would, instead of paying £10,000, pay £13,185. However, his neighbour who, for one reason or another, might have bought an identical flat at the same time and for some reason not taken out an option, would have to pay £16,370; so although he pays rather more than he would if the Bill is left unamended, he still does pretty well as compared with his neighbour. Again, if he were
entitled to a 33 per cent. discount, he would pay, instead of £13,400, £17,668. The same neighbour who again might have taken posession of his flat at the same time but again without an option would have to pay £21,281. So in each case the man or woman who took up the option would
66
be gaining approximately between £3,000 and £3,500. I do not think this is at all a bad bargain. It is fairer, I think, as far as local authorities are concerned and I hope that the noble Lord will give the amendment very serious consideration.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I was about to say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, when she stood up having had her previous amendment accepted, "Steady, steady!" In fact I listened very carefully to what she said when proposing this amendment because it was none too clear, at least to me, from its terms precisely what it was supposed to achieve. However, I am now much clearer.
I feel that I cannot be helpful on this, in the sense that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would wish. The fact is—although I do not want to repeat what I said when I spoke on Amendment No. 13—that the remarks I made then are really absolutely apposite to this as well. Perhaps I might say also that it is harder to save up when the price against which you are saving is in fact increasing as you save. Secondly, the two-year period during which completion may be deferred runs not from when the parties are first ready to complete except for the purchaser's lack of mortgage money, but instead from the date when the tenant claimed to exercise his right to buy. I have not heard anything additional said that could convince us that it would be right to give way on this point. It is a very fundamental part of the whole of the right-to-buy commitment which we made; and I will not, unless pressed, repeat when and how that was made because I do not think your Lordships would wish me to do that. But I fear I cannot accept this amendment.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, the House will know how we on this side feel and I think there has been some general support for the opposition to the option scheme as it stands. We certainly do want to press this amendment.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Eldon, E.

Peart, L.

Amberst, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Plant, L.

Aylestone, L.

Fulton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Bacon, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Balogh, L.

Gifford, L.

Rhodes, L.

Banks, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Barrington, V.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Segal, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shinwell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stedman, B.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hylton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kaldor, L.

Strauss, L.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Collison, L.

Listowel, E.

Wade, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller]

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Longford, E.

Whaddon, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

David, B.

McCluskey, L.

Willis, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Monson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Denington, B.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Alport, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Ampthill, L.

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

Orkney, E.

Auckland, L.

Pender, L.

Avon, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balerno, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sandford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Killearn, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Bridgeman, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Clifford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Teviot, L.

De Freyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Trenchard, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vaizey, L.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Middleton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Faithfull, B.

Milverton, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wise, L.

Gage, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 16:
68
Page 16, line 2, leave out ("injunction") and insert ("an order for specific performance as if there were in existence a contract for the sale of the property by the landlord to the tenant on the terms prescribed by this Part of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships might remember that I moved

69
a similar amendment at Committee stage because I felt that the Government were taking a heavy and blunt instrument to do what could have been done more subtly and much less messily by a different procedure of specific performance. I was told then by the noble Lord the Minister that since there was not a contract in the legal sense of the word in existence, the procedure of specific performance would not be applicable. Therefore, I re-drew the amendment so that the amendment would make what was not a contract into a contract for the purposes of applying the remedy of specific performance.
I have had a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in which he tells me—and I shall try to abbreviate what he has told me in the letter—that he has discovered that under section 47 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, a court can order the conveyance or lease under Part I of this Bill to be executed by a person nominated by the court when it is satisfied that the landlord has failed to complete under Section 16. I am obliged to the noble Lord for his letter.
Your Lordships will appreciate that what I was trying to avoid was a recalcitrant council which did not approve the concept of the sale of council houses making martyrs of themselves. We all have memories of occasions when councils have gone to great trouble to make martyrs of themselves to show how much they disapprove of the policy of the Government. Since the remedy for refusal to obey an injunction is imprisonment, I can see a number of council leaders in some councils—and I should not like to specify which—joyfully making martyrs of themselves in the style of the early Christian saints. I am somewhat reassured by the letter which the noble Lord has sent me. It seems to me that if what the noble Lord has said in his letter is the case, why, with great respect, have the Government bothered to insert this sanction saying that the remedy is to be enforced by injunction?
I should have thought that the Government, in the light of the evidence that the noble Lord has dug out from the 1925 Act, might want to consider, at least, changing "shall be enforceable by injunction", to "may be enforceable by injunction". Since the remedy is there
70
that the court can sign a conveyance where the local authority refuses, I feel that we are using a very heavy, blunt instrument to do something which could be done more simply, with less publicity and with less difficulty. I should have thought that the Government might have welcomed the opportunity to get themselves out of a hole that they have perhaps unintentionally dug for themselves. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, for the way he has expressed gratitude for my letter. If the right reverend Prelate will not think it blasphemous, I was going to say the heavenly fruit machine under the conjunction of the stars, Clause 16, page 16, Amendment 16, has proved moderately fruitful to making the noble Lord's mind a little bit warmer to the Government's thinking, than it was before.
My Lords, I could read out a lot from my papers, but I would rather not do so. I would rather say that we still prefer the word "injunction" to his "specific performance". Having explained—and I am grateful to him for having done so—that it does not mean that we have martyrs and the courts have full powers, I should like to leave it at that. If noble Lords want it, I could read out more. With hat the noble Lord said, and under the benign blessing of the number 16, I should like to leave it at what the noble Lord has said.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: As I said before, my Lords, I was trying to seek the avoidance of confrontation. I have had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who kindly supported me at the Committee stage. Having drawn the Government's attention to this, if the Government gets into this kind of trouble we will not say "we told you so" but just point to the appropriate columns in the Official Report. I beg to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 17 [Conveyance of freehold and grant of lease]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 17:

71
Page 16, line 11, at end insert ("and Part IV of that Schedule applies in relation to certain charges.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 17, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 21. These two amendments make the necessary provision for cases where a dwelling-house on which a tenant is exercising his right to buy is subject to an existing mortgage, or rent charge or other charge. These technical amendments will be important in the cases affected.
So far as the mortgages and other charges except rentcharges are concerned, the amendments embody two basic principles. First, a purchaser should expect to take the dwelling-house free of any such charge. Secondly, as far as possible the mortgagee's position should be sufficiently protected. This reflects the normal expectation of a purchaser in the private market. Such a purchaser would expect to take the conveyance of the property free from mortgages or other charges, but not free from rentcharges. I will come to rent charges in a moment. Housing associations may well have raised mortgages on their property; often (but by no means always) such mortgages would be in favour of the housing corporation. However in practice it is unlikely that a dwelling-house belonging to a landlord which is a local authority, development corporation or the Development Board for Rural Wales will be subject to a mortgage.
New paragraph 18(a) of Schedule 2 deals with the case where property is subject to a mortgage (or other charge except a rentcharge) in the following way. First, the dwelling-house will be conveyed (in the case of a house) free from any existing mortgage or other charge (other than a rentcharge). Secondly, the release of a dwelling-house from a charge under these provisions will be without prejudice to the landlord's personal obligation under the mortgage. I turn now to rentcharges. The provision for rentcharges needs to be different from that for mortgages. In contrast to general practice with mortgages, it is the custom for the purchasers of property subject to rentcharges to take the property with the rentcharge.
In money terms, the rentcharge will normally be at most an irritant: it will
72
be no more of a financial burden on the purchaser than is a ground rent payable on a long lease. (If it was more a burden it would reduce the price which the purchaser paid). That is fairly obvious. Amendment No. 21 also amends Schedule 2 to provide that where a house—but not a flat—sold under the right to buy is subject to a rentcharge which does not affect other land, the conveyance of the house will be made subject to the rentcharge.
However, where the house is on a larger parcel of land which is subject to a rent-charge we need to make special provision which as far as possible avoids the need to make a series of apportionments of the rentcharge, following a series of sales under the right to buy. This would be a time-consuming and administratively expensive business. Therefore, Amendment No. 21 further provides that in these circumstances that although the dwelling-house will still be conveyed subject to the rentcharge, the landlord is to convenant to indemnify the purchaser and his successors in respect of the rent-charge. Also, if the rentcharge may be redeemed under the Rentcharges Act 1977, the landlord will be bound to redeem it.
The amendments make different provisions in the case of flats. They provide that where there is a charge (whether a mortgage or a rentcharge) on the freehold of the land on which there is a flat, a lease granted on that flat under the right to buy will not be affected by that charge. (It will remain secured on the landlord's residual freehold interest). Amendment No. 17 itself is a paving amendment needed to bring in all the above. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, does not wish to move this amendment, Schedule 2, Amendment No. 18. Does either the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, or the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, wish to move it?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, not moved.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, Lord Monson, equally does not wish to move Amendment No. 18A which is on the supplementary list. We therefore pass to Amendment No. 19 in the name of Lord Bellwin.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment No. 19 not moved. Amendment 20, Lord Bellwin?
Schedule 2 [Conveyance of freehold and grant of Lease]:
5.50 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 109, line 24, leave out ("An agreement") and insert ("A provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 refers back to the beginning of paragraph 15, which is in terms of a "provision" rather than an "agreement." This amendment will mean that the terms used in these two paragraphs are consistent. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 109, line 34, at end insert—
("PART IV
CHARGES ON FREEHOLD
18. Where there is a charge (however created or arising) on the freehold which is not a tenant's incumbrance, then—

(a) if it is not a rentcharge, the conveyance of the freehold in pursuance of the right to buy shall be effective to release the freehold from the charge, but the release shall not affect the personal liability of the landlord or any other person in respect of any obligation which the charge was created to secure; and

(b) whether or not it is a rentcharge, the charge shall not affect a lease granted in pursuance of the right to buy.

19—(1) Where the freehold is subject to a rentcharge which does not affect other land the conveyance shall be made subject to the rentcharge.
(2) Where the freehold is subject to a rent-charge which also affects other land the conveyance shall be made subject to the rentcharge but shall contain a covenant by the landlord to indemnify the tenant and his successors in title in respect of any liability arising under the rentcharge.
(3) In a case falling within sub-paragraph (2) above the landlord shall, immediately after the conveyance and if the rentcharge is of a kind which may be redeemed under the Rentcharges Act 1977, take such steps as are necessary to redeem the rentcharge, so far as it affects land owned by the landlord (including land treated by sub-paragraph (4) below as so owned).
(4) For the purposes of the Rentcharges Act 1977 and of sub-paragraph (3) above any land
74
which has been conveyed by the landlord in pursuance of the right to buy, but subject to the rentcharge, shall be treated as if it had not been so conveyed but had continued to he owned by the landlord.
20. In this Part of this Schedule "rent-charge" has the same meaning as in the Rentcharges Act 1977; and for the purposes of paragraph 19 above land is owned by a person if he is the owner of the land within the meaning of section 13(1) of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Dwelling-houses in National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, etc.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 34, at beginning insert—
("the local authority with the consent of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed in Committee and it deals with the power and opportunity of local authorities to designate rural areas, which was previously covered in Clause 18. It was clear from the debate in Committee, which was not very conclusive, that many noble Lords on all sides of the Committee were concerned about these very great arbitrary powers—which, incidentally, run through this whole Bill—which are being taken by the Secretary of State. This amendment would enable local authorities themselves to designate rural areas, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Many of us felt that the autonomy of local authorities, which has been seriously eroded throughout this Bill, is particularly in danger under this clause. But they are the people who are very much on the ground in the rural areas, and who should be in the position of designating them, with the consent of the Secretary of State. As I remember, the Minister said that local authorities could undertake an initiative, and there was no reason why they should not do that. But, later on, he was unable to say at which point the initiative could be taken and in what way. But he said that there were three good reasons why this decision should be left to the Secretary of State himself.
The first was that this was the only way of being sure that desirable consistency in the policy was maintained. The second was administrative convenience, though, he emphasised not, the convenience of the Secretary of State. The third reason was constitutional, which seemed to me to be making rather heavy weather of it. The alarming point about all these reasons is that they make for a far too tidy state. To have everything consistent is a miserable way of doing things, because areas are not consistent, local authorities are not consistent and, thank God, most of us are not consistent; otherwise, we should be more like automatons than human beings. Administrative convenience is a very bad reason for doing something, because such a reason should be tailored to the right policy and not the other way round. As I said, the constitutional point is making rather heavy weather of it.
I asked the Minister at which point the local authority would be brought in, since the Secretary of State would make an order. I said that there is no point in taking an initiative if nobody takes any notice, if one is not called in and if one is not treated as an equal partner. I said that if the Minister could not take the matter any further, perhaps he would come back on Report or write to me and tell me exactly what was the process. The Minister replied:
"I really do try hard to be understanding and helpful".
he does, and I agree with that—
"I cannot really see the point. The only thing I can suggest is that the noble Baroness might care to have a word with me afterwards, unless it is so late that neither of us is in the mood to do so "—[Official Report, 30/6/80; col. 125.]
Evidently we were not in the mood to do so. Nothing further has been said and we have not corresponded on this point.
But, to be serious, this is an important point. It is right that local authorities should come in at this point. Earlier on in the debate, the Minister said that if one designated an area it may turn out to be partly in the district of another authority, which might cause difficulties. I feel that these difficulties can be ironed out, and they usually are. Anyhow, I do not see any problem, because if one authority
76
wanted to designate a rural area which was partly within the area of another authority, they could come to some agreement or could agree to disagree. It is much more healthy and virile to operate in that way, rather than to leave it to the centralist hand—I will not say equal hand—of the Secretary of State, which is much more remote. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I and many others have been most concerned, and still are, about the impact of the right to buy in rural areas. It is for this reason that I wrote to my noble friend on the Front Bench immediately after the Committee stage, asking him what would be the criteria by which the Secretary of State would designate his rural areas. I also asked when these criteria would be published. He has very kindly replied to me, but I am sorry to say that all he has been able to put on paper is the following:
"The relevant orders would go through the normal parliamentary processes of the Negative Resolution procedure. Beyond this, I cannot commit my colleagues."
Therefore, we do not know what a rural area will be in the mind of the Secretary of State.
At the Committee stage, I quoted a number of areas in Somerset which are highly debatable. Some people could call them urban; others could call them rural. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, quoted a number of areas of a different character in Yorkshire where, again, there could be this difference of opinion. That is why it is right to give a local authority the initiative in defining a rural area, in its own context of circumstances. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with Conservative principles that there should he this initiative in the hands of the local authority, who know the area and who are elected to represent it. Of course, you need the consent of the Secretary of State as well, in order to get some kind of uniform national policy, but let the initiative be with the local authority. I very much hope that my noble friend will look very favourably upon and, if possible, accept, at this stage, this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I cannot accept this amendment. The noble Lord,

77
Lord Hylton, made the important point of the initiative and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked at what stage an authority would take such an initiative. It would be open to an authority to instigate steps to have an area so designated at any time after the Bill has been enacted. It could do so immediately. Indeed, most of the local authorities that I know are not backward in coming forward, when they feel they have something that they want to press. They will know precisely what it is that we are about. They will know all that is going on under the Bill, and this move will be entirely up to them. I have every confidence that they will do so. As my noble friend rightly said, it is then, quite properly, up to the Secretary of State to react to those initiatives. There is no more reason to suppose that the reaction will be less favourable than it might be to the opinions which anybody else might have.
The important point here, and one of very great significance, is the third, the constitutional reason, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred. Surely it must be right that orders of this kind should come under the scrutiny of Parliament, and that is what will happen under the Bill, as drafted. However, they would not do so under the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. For that reason alone, I should have thought that the noble Baroness might not have wanted to pursue the amendment in this way. I am not sure whether she really appreciates the significance of that point. Possibly she does.
I do not know that there is much more that I can add to what I said at Second Reading without going over it all again, which I have no wish to do. I understand the concern, but I feel, for the reasons which I have given, that it should not be a matter of concern. Possibly the best safeguard of all is that there is parliamentary cover and every opportunity for authorities to take initiatives. There is also the position of the Secretary of State. I think that everybody is involved. In the light of that explanation, I hope
that the noble Baroness feels that she does not need to pursue the amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is the second time round on this question. In Committee, apart from the Minister, nobody supported the line which he has taken. Concern was expressed all round. A point which I did not make when I moved the amendment concerns delay. If a local authority undertakes this initiative at some point and applies to the Government to declare a rural area, we do not know how long it will be before the Government department replies and everything is sorted out. We have to be realistic. We all know that these things take time. They will take even longer if we get, as we are getting now, cuts in central Government expenditure. Therefore, it will he understandable if things are further delayed.
I think that rather heavy weather was made of the constitutional point, and I am not entirely convinced about it. As it will be the local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, which will designate the area, I think because of the way in which it is drafted, that if something arises it will go to Parliament. On the other hand, nowadays there are so many areas in which local authorities take decisions that I am not completely horrified by the idea of it not having parliamentary approval. If there is great feeling about the designation of one of these areas, first it need not get the support of the Secretary of State and, secondly, the Members of Parliament for that area have every right to bring it up—and most definitely would do so—in the House of Commons. I find that the Minister's reply is very unsatisfactory. It has not taken us any further. I am afraid, therefore, that I shall press the amendment.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Balogh, L.

Beswick, L.

Amherst, E.

Banks, L.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Barrington, V.

Blease, L.

Aylestone, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bacon, B.

Bernstein, L.

Brockway, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Chitnis, L.

Hylton, L.

Segal, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stamp, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Denington, B.

McCluskey, L.

Strauss, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milverton, L.

Underhill, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Monson, L.

Wade, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fulton, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gifford, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Willis, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hooson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Orkney, E.

Avon, E.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

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

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Savile, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hatherton, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Spens, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trenchard, V.

De La Warr, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Vaizey, L.

Denman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Wise, L.

Elles, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I have to call your attention to the fact that, owing to a misprint in the Procedural Orders, Amendment No. 18B was not called after Amendment No. 18. If your Lordships are agreeable, I will now call Amendment No. 18B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin.
Schedule 2 [Conveyance of freehold and grant of lease]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 18B:
Page 108, line 18, at end insert ("but subject to sub-paragraph (2) below.
(2) If a building contains two or more dwelling-houses and the landlord has, since the passing of this Act, granted a lease of one of them for a term of not less than 125 years, any lease granted in pursuance of this Chapter of the other or one of the others may be for a

81
term expiring at the end of that term and, if it is for such a term, the assumption stated in section 6(4)(a) shall be modified accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2B. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, we now revert to the main list: Amendment No. 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I withdrew Amendment No. 23. It was not moved.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not moved.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Costs]:
6.13 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 25:
Leave out Clause 21 and insert the following new clause:
Costs
(21. The landlord and, if appropriate, the Housing Corporation may charge to the tenant the costs incurred by it in connection with the tenant's exercise of the right to buy and the tenant's exercise, if such be the case of the right to a mortgage but in either case only to the extent that they do not exceed such amount or amounts as the Secretary of State may by order specify.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 20 as it now stands provides that a landlord may pass on to the purchaser only the cost of a mortgage and not the legal administrative costs of sale. These will amount to a considerable sum as the volume of sales increases following enactment of the Bill. Under existing arrangements, it is common practice for authorities to pass on to the purchasers the legal administrative costs of the transaction. It is my view and that of the AMA that it is unreasonable that ratepayers and tenants should pay for such costs, particularly in the light of the generous discount arrangements which will be available. Accordingly, we should like to see the insertion of this new Clause 20 whereby the landlord will be able to pass on to the purchaser legal and administrative costs up to a maximum prescribed by the Secretary of
82
State. It seems to me not only to be legally right but to make economic good sense, because if people have the opportunity to buy the houses, and buy them at these rates of discount, then I think it is important that they themselves should carry the cost and that it should not be borne by the rest of the community. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness that the prohibition of the recovery of the costs of a right-to-buy sale by the landlord from the tenant in Clause 21 of the Bill makes a departure from current practice in some local authorities when a house is sold under the general consent for council house sales. But circumstances are not entirely the same in both cases. The question of how the costs incurred by the parties to a sale under the right to buy should be met is not clear-cut, and called for a judgment to be made. The judgment that we came to is reflected in Clause 21. It was that each party to the transaction should bear its own costs arising from a sale under the right to buy. There are two reasons for this. First, it seemed a fair arrangement on general grounds, given that the Bill introduces a statutory right for the secure tenant to buy and a statutory obligation on the landlord to sell. Secondly, it corresponded to normal arrangements when a dwelling was sold on the private market.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, when selling her house, would not expect a purchaser to pay the costs she had incurred as vendor; nor would she expect to be required to pay the vendor's costs if she were the buyer. The landlord's costs incurred as a result of a tenant's right to buy are vendor's costs, and it is fair that the landlord, as vendor, should bear them. The tenant, in turn, will have to bear such costs as he may incur as a purchaser. He may decide that he wishes to be legally represented, for example, or that he wishes to have a structural survey carried out on the property.
It was to follow practice in the private sector, also, that we provided in subsection (2) of Clause 21 for a charge to be made to the tenant for costs that the landlord or, if appropriate, the Housing Corporation, incurs in connection with the tenant's exercise of his right to a mortgage. As your Lordships know, building societies

83
and other mortgagees normally recover their costs in this way. The main items are legal fees and the cost of the mortgagee's survey of the property.
I should like to make it clear that the prohibition in subsection (1) of Clause 21 applies only to the landlord's own costs; it does not prevent arrangements of the sort provided for in subsection (1)(c) of Clause 9, under which a tenant's costs can be defrayed by the landlord or the Housing Corporation on his behalf and then recovered. It seems to me that the arrangements in Clause 21 are entirely fair and reasonable. I cannot agree to the charging of the vendor's costs to the purchaser in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, even with the safeguard of the maximum amount which her amendment would empower the Secretary of State to specify by order. I hope that she will accept this argument and maybe withdraw her amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am really not very happy about that. The Minister gave the analogy of my buying a house and how I would feel about the costs. If I bought a house that I had been living in for 20 years and got 50 per cent. discount, and if in addition I had also had the option, I do not think I would mind very much about paying my share of the costs. But this is not the point. The point is that that would be so if I were living as a council tenant and bought that house, because I would then be in the public sector area and be involved, and the people who would be helping to defray my costs would be ratepayers and taxpayers; so that is entirely different.
On this point, perhaps I could quote a case from Harrogate Borough Council, where they had a report from the housing property committee that a charge of roughly £130 a house would be made against the purchase of council houses to cover the administrative costs. It was then that the chief executive found that under the Housing Land Bill now going through the House a charge of that kind would be inadmissible when the Bill becomes an Act. It really looks as though this can lead to quite a considerable expense being laid on the landlord in the case of sales of houses. It is something that I certainly do not intend to press at the moment, but in spite of what the
84
Minister said I wonder whether he would take it back to look at it. It really is not a party political point. It just seems to me to be rather inequitable. Local authorities, again with more and more limited resources and the compulsion on them to give mortgages, are going to find themselves up against it as well with some additional expenditure which I really think in this case could be undertaken by the tenants.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, I think we have here a fundamental difference really of what the impact on the finances of local authorities will be. I do not see it at all as the noble Baroness does, with her fears about the effect that it will have on the finances of local authorities. Indeed, quite the contrary, even with the discounts. Therefore, the main point upon which she makes her case, which she does so well, is obviously one on which we do not agree. For that and the other reasons I have already given. I fear that at this stage I am not able to take it back, although I entirely understand the point that she is making.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.21 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Conveyancing
Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall not apply in relation to the preparation of a conveyance, mortgage or lease in pursuance of this Chapter, where the title to the land in question is, at the time when the notice under section 5 of this Act is served, already registered with an absolute title under the Land Registration Act 1925.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I move with some diffidence because it is one that I would normally have expected to come from the Government Benches. This is an amendment which seeks to break the "closed shop" in rather an important respect. Your Lordships will recall that under Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974—which was passed by a previous Administration not of the noble Lord's party, so I do not seek to make any particular point of it—

85
"any unqualified person who directly or indirectly—

(a) draws or prepares any instrument of transfer or charge for the purposes of the Land Registration Act 1925, or makes any application or lodges any document for registration under that Act at the registry, or

(b) draws or prepares any other instrument relating to real or personal estate, or any legal proceeding, shall, unless he proves that the act was not done for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward, be guilty of an offence …".

That particular section of the Act establishes for an important part of the legal profession a complete monopoly of acting in this particular way. As I have said, from a Government who, rumour has it, are so completely opposed to the principle of the closed shop, I should have thought that this Bill presented an admirable opportunity (particularly since the vendors are either local authorities or housing associations and no particular complications are likely to arise) where they could easily have tabled this amendment themselves. The position, of course, is reserved,
"When any notice under Section 5 of the Act is served, already registered with an absolute title under the Land Registration Act …";
and other cases of course would normally be prepared and engrossed by properly qualified solicitors. I should have thought this amendment could easily have
been tabled by the Government in pursuit of their widely enunciated principles on the subject. Consider the amount of costs that would be saved not only to local authorities and housing associations but also to the individual purchasers themselves. I should have thought purely in the interests of economy this would have been an excellent provision for the Government to have inserted.
It has often been said that matters relating to the transfer of ownership of property or the conveyance of property are matters of immense legal complication and give rise to difficulties, and indeed may result in some defect of a title further down the line. But there are many more complicated transactions than the simple transfer of property, and if simplicity, or alternatively complication, were to be the guide surely the Government would have insisted on legal advice being taken before contracts of insurance were entered into. It must be within the noble Lord's experience on reading insurance policies and massive exclusion
86
clauses, which are virtually incomprehensible in any small print, that if ever legal advice is required then surely in some cases it should be required before a contract of insurance is entered into.
I think the noble Lord ought to take these matters into consideration and, in view of the well-known principles enunciated by his party, he should at least consider taking a step forward to free many tenants and landlords from what is frequently the onerous and costly responsibility imposed on them by law of employing members of the legal profession for this purpose. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I say that the normal standards of politeness in your Lordships' House to which I have become accustomed are being strained in the extreme by the mover of this amendment. I must declare an interest, my Lords; I am a solicitor. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that possibly we should also limit some of the monopolies which the accountancy profession enjoys. I do not think that this is either the time or the occasion to discuss the monopoly which the legal profession enjoys in the conveyancing field. It should surely be a matter for further legislation, if necessary, after consideration of the Royal Commission's report; and I would remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would say "whitewashed" the legal profession, but those of us who are lawyers thought they gave a very fair and reasoned report on the way in which the legal profession exercises its conveyancing monopoly and the not unduly expensive means that is employed to do this. But may I point out that the legal profession and the provincial branches have agreed extra-statutory scales of remuneration for acting in this kind of transaction, which as your Lordships will realise is often cheaper and less onerous because of the nature of the way in which the title has been prepared by the local authority, and there is a very generously calculated extra-statutory scale of charges agreed between the local authorities and the local law societies. That is the first point.
The second point is that with the best will in the world these unqualified conveyancers are a very peculiar race indeed. In the part of the world where I practice

87
as a lawyer there is a gentleman who benefits from one of the loopholes in the law and practices as a conveyancer on the strength of being a notary public. He failed his Law Society finals only because he failed to pass his conveyancing paper at least eight or 10 times and now he practices as a conveyancer. If that is the kind of person that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, wants to put in charge of the tenants who are trying to buy their council houses and change their style of life, and who often need considerable explanation about the complexities of the nature of the documents they are about to sign, I should have thought your Lordships would want to think carefully about it before agreeing with the noble Lord's proposal.
I should like to add that I speak only for myself. I do not speak for my noble friends, many of whom are as prejudiced against my profession as are many noble Lords in other parts of your Lordships' House, but I do hope that your Lordships will not support this amendment. If this matter were to be discussed it should be on a quite separate matter of an amendment to the Solicitors Act.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I declare an interest too? In my 60 years in professional life, I have come across attempts made by people who are not qualified which have landed people, their so-called clients, into very serious difficulties. Let me give a simple illustration. We are dealing at present with leaseholds. How many people have entered into leaseholds without seeking proper advice and later on have found themselves, at the end of a period, without the freehold and having to live and make arrangements with the landlord into whose hands this has fallen?
My Lords, this is not as simple a matter as it might seem to the average individual. It is terribly important that an unqualified person should not be in a position to advise on matters of a legal nature, any more than an unqualified person should give medical advice. A person needing medical advice ought to go to a doctor; in other words, a person holding himself out to be able to do what a doctor has been examined about and who has had experience is the only person who can
88
claim to be a doctor and to carry on that profession.
This is not just a matter of profession. A lot of us have given freely of our time. I am sure my noble friend Lord Evans will agree that in cases where people have been hard up, are really in a bad way or something of that sort, the Law Society and the lawyers themselves in the local area invariably give them a hand-out. This is factually the case, and I defy anybody who is in contact with solicitors to deny this. I cannot think of any of my colleagues who has found himself confronted by a person who is really poor who has not reduced the fees or has charged no fees.
The real point is this: how can an unqualified man know what the absolute consequences are of any advice that he gives? What compensation, what insurance, is there? I do not know whether your Lordships realise that it costs £1,000 a year, or something of that sort, for every individual, to cover insurance for any mistakes made in order to see to it that compensation shall be paid to anyone who has been wrongly advised and consequently suffered damages. This is a very interesting and, I think, a very important profession.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have been in the House of Commons, but if you go to a "surgery" in the House of Commons and anyone comes along to ask for advice, there are small committees in which the advice is given freely to the residents of a particular area. This is not a trivial matter; this is a profession in which it takes six or seven years before one can actually practise as a solicitor, and this profession has to be qualified to deal with whatever contingency may arise.
Your Lordships have heard the noble Lord, Lord Evans. The question of scales and things of that nature are under consideration. I think it is much better that one takes the advice of the Law Society and the law profession because they are the people who know most about this kind of thing. In spite of what a lot of people think of solicitors, barristers and lawyers, should they be in the House or anywhere else, the fact of the matter is that they are professional people who advise, and without advice very big

89
mistakes can be made. The profession itself is a reasonable profession which understands the needs of people who are not in a position to pay.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I was going to ask: can anyone join in? Perhaps I need not quite do that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in fact made the point I was going to make; namely, that the Government are it so happens, at the present time considering the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, and clearly until he had some views as to that he would not want to make any such moves. So, without my making too much of a do of it, I think I can leave the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I seen to have been a little misunderstood by members of the legal profession within your Lordships' House. This amendment did not in any way seek to prohibit solicitors from doing busines of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, did refer to cases where mishaps occur, and perhaps it is some commentary that all individuals—including members of the legal and, I should add, accountancy professions—are prone to make errors from time to time. Of course, there are professional indemnity policies which exist precisely for that purpose, and solicitors do insure themselves, thereby admitting the feasibility of error, as indeed we do in our profession.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but would the noble Lord be good enough to say whether any insurance company is prepared to cover a person who is not a professional man in these matters?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, that is a matter for the insurance companies. I know of no one. Perhaps I could mollify the noble Lord by saying that if I intended to embark on a transaction of this kind I should not hesitate to employ the services of my own solicitor. All I wished to do was to allow people freedom under certain well-defined circumstances. But, as the noble Lord opposite has said, the report of the Royal Commission is to be considered. I would not wish to intrude on your Lordships' time any further and I will, with your
90
Lordships' permission, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Secretary of State's power to intervene]:
Baroness BTRK Baroness BTRK moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 19, line 36, after ("so") insert ("and of his reasons for doing so").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment because we are once again, as we were in the previous amendment, dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State. The whole of Clause 23 gives the Secretary of State quite unprecedented powers to intervene with local government; and the object of this amendment, which in the circumstances is quite a modest little amendment, is simply in Clause 23(1) to say that the Secretary of State should give to the landlord or landlords not only notice in writing of his intentions but also "his reasons for doing so". We are only asking here for the reasons.
If I might just briefly review the powers that Parliament is being asked to give the Secretary of State, in the first place he can, after serving his notice, go even beyond the powers Parliament is asked to give to allow the right to buy. This is by virtue of subsection (7), which,
"may require the taking of steps different from those which the landlord would have been required to take".
In other words, he is going to be allowed to act in what I would call an extra-parliamentary manner. He can under subsection (5) require the landlord
"to produce any document or supply any information"
and require officers of the council to produce any document or any information even if they are not instructed to do so. That particular subsection is dealt with in a following amendment.
He can also take over on behalf of the council mortgage payments and refuse to return the money obtained to the council whose property was sold except at the pleasure of the Secretary of State; that is in subsection (4). By virtue of Clause 23 the Secretary of State can actually transfer the ownership of property, built and paid for in the main by local councils, to the

91
tenant. Finally, the Secretary of State can charge the council such sums as he may determine for the cost of compulsorily seizing and selling its property over its head; that is in subsection (9).
What conditions are laid down for the exercise of such power?—which any Conservative Government would condemn as monstrous if it were applied to private property rather than that held in the public trust. Only that the Secretary of State shall believe that the right to buy may have difficulty in being exercised effectively and expeditiously. This is such a vaguely worded clause, with absolutely no checks on the powers of decision of the Secretary of State. This is again what I am afraid we keep coming back to in this Bill. It is another fundamental attack on the principle of local autonomy, of local councils managing their own property. This is an extremely modest amendment to deal with it.
I would point out to the noble Lord who is to reply that not only is there no precedent for this but there are precedents which have been brought in by Conservative Governments for doing the opposite. When the Conservative Government passed their last housing Act, the Housing Finance Act 1972, it included the power to require councils to put up its rents and it vested in central Government a power to impose its own authority in default if any authority was recalcitrant. It is true it gave rise to the Clay Cross affair which caused considerable heat. In that Act there was an advance notice provision which read as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State before making an order … to give notice in writing to the authority concerned that he is considering whether to make such an order and to have regard to any representations made to him by the authority within one month of the notification ".
This is exactly the sort of thing I am asking for in this Bill.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that this was discussed in Committee. It is very interesting that on all these matters that were discussed in Committee there were practically no occasions, especially when these outstanding and fundamental problems were aired, on which there was any support for the Minister from the Benches opposite. At the end of the various criticisms that
92
were rained on him from these Benches and from the Liberal Benches the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said:
"I am not at all convinced; at the same time I recognise the point of view being put forward. I cannot accept the amendment. I do not agree with it and I do not think that it is necessary, but I am prepared to do the very thing that the noble Lord suggested and talk to my colleagues about it. Beyond that I cannot go. That I will undertake to do ".—[Official Report, 30/6/80; col. 149.]
I do not seem to remember receiving any illumination of any talks, if and when they took place, but hopefully the noble Lord who is to reply on this may have come back with the happy news that the Government are going to accept what I would call a very modest amendment in regard to what is a draconian list of powers the Secretary of State has under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I seem to have been plunged into this amendment rather at the deep end. When this question was discussed at Committee stage my noble friend said that he would talk about it to our colleagues, although he made it clear that he was not convinced by the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, had put forward. I understood that he had had discussions, but if the noble Baroness says that he has not it is obviously an omission of memory on my noble friend's part. I do not know. I seem to have it in front of me that there were discussions. It may have been something which was halfway between this and something else. These matters are so complicated that it is easy for the noble Lord or noble Baroness to muddle up what they did discuss. I have done that myself before today, as your Lordships are aware. My noble friend, I gather, having re-read carefully what was said in this House, wrote to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, with his conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was concerned that there should be a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult a local authority before serving a notice under what is now Clause 23(1). As my noble friend explained on that occasion, consultation is in effect already built in because of the nature of the events which would lead up to an intervention. I sincerely hope that matters will never go that

93
far, but if they did it would first have been necessary for the case to have been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State as one where he might consider using his powers under this clause. It would be natural and normal for there to be contact by way of preliminary inquiries from the Department about the case or cases concerned at that stage. My honourable friend the Minister has also undertaken quite specifically that administrative steps would always be taken to notify any authority on which the Secretary of State was considering serving a notice. So in practice the consultation which the noble Lord wanted to take place is already provided for.
It is inconceivable, I would suggest, that with the Bill as it stands a notice should come, or could come, as a surprise to a local authority. The authority will always know that it had been in the offing and they will also know about the events leading up to it and the background to its service. It would simply not be possible to operate the clause in any other way. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, implied in Committee that if some sort of advance consultation procedure could be considered by the department that would be an acceptable substitute for the amendment, which has now been moved again. But, as my noble friend said, consultation is in practice already assured. I do not accept therefore that this amendment is necessary, and I would urge the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must apologise because recollection has suddenly come to me. I think the noble Lord will understand; he is always sympathetic. We have had such a shoal of letters from the department. The words "administrative steps" strike a bell, and I have a
feeling that I must have filed it under "turned down", and so it then got lost. I think I probably did get it, but, as the noble Lord will understand, I was not convinced by it.
If he says it is really already written in because consultations would take place, I still think we are not talking about informal meetings or just a briefing for a seminar. We are talking about what goes into legislation and I think we must have a great deal of respect for that and a great deal of care. I am always unhappy even if one says these things will happen and the administrative steps will take place and everybody will know about it in advance, that it still should not be written into the legislation.
I still believe it is important because we are dealing with very serious matters: personnel change in ministries, Governments change and it is very important to have what I feel are safeguards; whether they are safeguards for the individual, safeguards for the local authority or safeguards for other bodies, they should be written into the Bill. As I said when I moved it, I consider this an extremely modest amendment. All I am asking is that the reasons should be in writing as well as the intentions in the notice. It seems to me to be rather unnecessarily obdurate to resist something which I would think was as sensible as this. Anyhow, I will not take any more time on it because I intend to press the amendment.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 74.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned, so that we can deal with the next business. It is the intention that this Report stage will be resumed at 8 p.m.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES)(ECSC DECISION OF 18th MARCH 1980 ON SUPPLEMENTARY REVENUE) ORDER 1980
7 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD Viscount TRENCHARD rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision of 18th March 1980 on Supplementary Revenue) Order 1980, laid before your Lordships' House on 23rd June 1980, be approved.
The order specifies as a Community treaty the decision taken at the Council of Ministers on 18th March 1980 to allocate supplementary revenue to the 1980 Budget of the European Coal and Steel Community. If the House approves this order, it will formally define the decision as a Community treaty under Section I of the European Communities Act 1972 thereby permitting the necessary sum to be paid to the ECSC as provided for in Section 2(3) of the Act.
I am sure that noble Lords will be acquainted with this procedure for allocating supplementary revenue to the ECSC since it was used twice last year in respect of both the 1978 and 1979 ECSC Budgets.

97
Although there was some upturn in the European steel industry last year, the ECSC is still faced with weakness of demand, surplus capacity and heavy expenditure associated with steel restructuring. Indeed, 1980 will be a year of very great difficulty for the European steel industry. A high level of expenditure by the ECSC will continue to be needed in particular to assist redundant steelworkers with resettlement grants and to provide interest-subsidies on loans for projects designed to give alternative employment to redundant steelworkers and coal miners.
In these circumstances, inevitably revenue derived from the ECSC's normal source of income, the levy on production, will again prove inadequate to meet outgoings. The levy on coal and steel production has been raised by the Commission from 0·29 per cent. to 0·31 per cent. in 1980, but it would not be desirable, even if it were possible, to place an additional burden on these hard-pressed industries by raising the rate of the levy further. In the longer term, we want to see the ECSC self-financing once again, but we must recognise that at present that is not a realistic possibility.
Noble Lords will wish to know how this need for extra revenue became translated into the decision we are currently concerned with. By cutting expenditure
on some headings and raising the rate of the levy by 0.02 per cent. the Commission reduced the forecast excess of expenditure over income of 70 million European units of account shown in the first draft of the ECSC Budget for 1980 drawn up in October last year to 43 million European units of account. That still proved too much. The Commission proposed that this 43 million European units of account should be filled by extraordinary receipts. In discussing the form such receipts should take it soon became clear that there was a preference among member states for a further round of ad hoc supplementary contributions rather than a transfer from the EEC general budget, the legality of which is uncertain. The idea of transferring the proceeds of customs duties on imports of ECSC products, which has been suggested in the past, remains unacceptable to most member states, including the United Kingdom, as being unrelated either to member states' wealth and ability to pay or to the size of their
98
steel and coal industries and as involving a fundamental change in the ECSC Treaty which, unlike the EEC Treaty, leaves customs receipts in the hands of member states.
The Commission proposed that the 43 million European units of account, should be used to finance interest rebates on loans for reconversion projects that is, on loans for new industrial projects in coal and steel closure areas which would provide new jobs for redundant coal and steelworkers. Although the United Kingdom was prepared to support a supplementary contribution of this size, some member states sought to reduce the amount and the compromise agreed for the March Council, subject to parliamentary procedures, was that the supplementary contribution should total 28 million European units of account—the same figure as in 1978 and 1979. It was also agreed that there should be a review in the autumn of the need for further supplementary revenue for the ECSC for this year and next. Of the 28 million European units of account the share to be paid by each member state will be the same as in 1979 and 1978, the United. Kingdom
contribution being 17.42 per cent. or about £3 million.
There is expected to be a clear net benefit to the United Kingdom from this ad hoc contribution; Commission officials have provided figures which show that in 1978 and 1979 the United Kingdom received 40 per cent. of the allocations for interest rebates on reconversion projects. Their preliminary examination of requests already in the pipeline suggests that this figure will almost certainly be maintained in 1980. We should remember that the money under this heading in the budget helps to provide new and permanent employment for former coal and steelworkers. And small businesses as well as major projects can benefit from the scheme; there is a scheme operated by ICFC which specifically enables small businesses to take advantage of these funds.
In fact the United Kingdom is receiving a net benefit from the ECSC Budget overall. In 1979 the United Kingdom paid approximately £15 million through the levy on coal and steel production and £3¼ million through the Government contribution making a total of £18¼ million. Against

99
this the United Kingdom was allocated £14 million for resettlement aid to redundant coal and steel workers, £½ million in interest rebates for coal and steel modernisation loans, £7 million for interest rebates on reconversion loans, and £9¾ million for United Kingdom-based research projects, making £31¼ million in total against an £18¼ million contribution in total. Noble Lords will agree that that is a reasonably satisfactory state of affairs. I am therefore confident that the proposed contribution is fully justified and accordingly I seek approval for the draft order in council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved—(Viscount Trenchard.)
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for having introduced this order. I have before me an explanatory memorandum for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which refers to a number of documents which are very necessary indeed for this House to have in its possession before it considers the whole matter within its context. For example, the decision of the representatives of the Governments of the member states of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) meeting within the Council, of 18th March, is not available at present to Members of this House, even though the explanatory memorandum refers to it. Nor is the 1980 budget of the ECSC available to Members of this House to examine the matter within its context and nor—within the facilities at present available to us—can I obtain a copy of what is euphemistically referred to as the Treaty of Paris.
All of those documents are referred to in paragraph 2 of the explanatory memorandum. I do not think that this is particularly satisfactory. After all, EEC matters are of some concern to the nation as a whole because, by virtue of the Act of Accession 1972, various decisions and directives, together with regulations, become automatically incorporated in United Kingdom law. The ancient British maxim is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Perhaps in some cases it is not, but at least it ought to be possible, within the
100
facilities provided to this House, for any noble Lord to obtain documents to which reference has been made in an explanatory memorandum.
No one can complain about the way in which the noble Viscount has introduced this particular item. His explanations have been very adequate indeed; and I understand from him that the present purpose is to provide for budgetary assistance in connection with interest rebates. I think that this is very reasonable, but, of course, it is only part of the problem and remains to be considered within the context of the European Steel industry as a whole.
Very often in this House we have debated vast sums of money to be paid out of this country's Exchequer, in particular into the Common Agricultural Policy, which I believe is not universally popular on either side of your Lordships' House, certainly not in another place; indeed, dismay with it is already widespread on the continent of Europe, though not particularly among the beneficiary countries of France, Denmark and, of course, Eire.
However, iron and steel are the very sinews of European industry, and one would have thought that on the assumption that we are a European economic community as distinct from an agricultural club, the problems of the European steel industry in all the member states would have received far more consideration than they have so far. It is, indeed, indicative of the present mood of the Nine, who appear to accept all the ridiculous and insane consequences of the Common Agricultural Policy, with all the increases in domestic price levels and the rest, and with all the contributions that are made direct from the budget, and, indeed, from our own Consolidated Fund by our own taxpayers. However, when it comes to the steel industry, that becomes the Cinderella.
Why should that be? I have before me the draft budget for 1980, as approved on first reading. Under Title 5, Chapter 54 it says:
"Special contribution to the ECSC for temporary social measures in connection with the restructuring of the steel industry".
This is quite consistent with the often expressed desires of the Commission—and in particular of Count Davignon, the

101
Commissioner who is in charge of this particular side of Community affairs—to put forward some degree of Community responsibility for all the ailing steel industries of Europe. So it put into its preliminary draft budget 100 million units of account for these particular provisions:
"Special contribution to the ECSC for temporary social measures in connection with the restructuring of the steel industry ",
which is a problem throughout Europe.
The European Parliament approved this sum, but when it went before the Council, the Council reduced it to nil. Indeed, in the Council's revised draft general budget for the financial year 1980, one finds under Chapter 54 "nil". So they decided not to do anything about it. In an explanatory memorandum issued by the Department of Industry on 20th May 1980 it says:
"Originally the Commission proposed that 100 million European Units of Account "—
that is, roughly £66 million—
"be granted to the European Coal and Steel Community from the General Budget … over a period of 3 years ".
then it says:
"It is intended that these funds will finance the Commission proposals to assist steelworkers adversely affected by the re-structuring of the steel industry ".
It then said that out of its own resources in the ECSC, despite the increased levy, there were no resources available for the new social measures proposed. Then at paragraph 7 it says:
"Funds would be transferred from the General Budget of the European Communities. Member States have not yet accepted the legality of the proposed transfer ".
I do not know where this question of legality arises. There are some views as to whether the transfer is permitted under Article 235 of the treaty. Someone must have been reading the fine print because I cannot see—and I agree that I am no European lawyer—any reason why this transfer should not take place under the normal provisions of the financial regulations. Perhaps if the noble Viscount is advised otherwise he can inform the House as to how he considers these would be illegal.
Finally, on the memorandum of 20th May, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry says:
102
"No action can be taken on the proposed transfer of funds until the EEC 1980 Budget has been agreed, nor until the Council has reached a decision on the social proposals to assist steelworkers ".
We now know that the draft budget for 1980 has at last been approved. All we now await is a decision on the social proposals to assist steelworkers.
I have some questions to ask about this. The plight of the steelworkers of the United Kingdom is well known. The extent to which their troubles will be exacerbated or otherwise by decisions made by the Secretary of State for Industry himself—who has certain very pronounced ideas on this subject—is not, of course, yet known. We do not even know in what the MacGregor proposals, when they are formulated, will result. But one thing is certain. The plight of the steelworkers of this country is one of increasing gravity. Nor, is this confined in any way to the United Kingdom. Other steel industries in Europe—some of them state-supported in precisely the same way as the United Kingdom industry has been supported in the past—are also facing difficulties.
I am given to understand by Her Majesty's Government that they take their membership of the EEC very seriously. In fact, I have asked them many times to state in precise terms what economic, as distinct from political, advantages have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of membership, and what advantages are apprehended in the future. So far I have received no reply. However, I take the point that come hell and high water Her Majesty's Government are firm members of the EEC and fully espouse its principles. I want to ask them what energy they will put into it to ensure that out of ECSC funds or out of the budget Britain receives a net benefit of a substantial size to deal with the very great problems that the steelworkers in South Wales, Corby, Scunthorpe and elsewhere will experience.
Even on the assumption—which I do not accept—that the funds in the United Kingdom at the moment do not permit of some state-aided expenditure, there is still no excuse, if we cannot do it, for not pressing with the utmost vigour, for the EEC to do something about it. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us what steps he has in mind for this meeting that is due to take place in the

103
autumn in order that out of the EEC budget there can be, via the ECSC, certain sums made available in order to bear part of the tremendous financial costs in terms of human lives, human incomes, and all the rest of it that will result from the mass closures that are envisaged.
If Her Majesty's Government cannot do it out of Treasury resources—and I do not admit that they cannot at a time when they are willing to spend £5,000 million on Trident—then there is still no excuse for them not using the maximum endeavour within the Council of the EEC, and indeed at all levels in the EEC, to make sure that our needs are made known and are satisfied. If the noble Viscount could give us some idea as to what plans Her Majesty's Government have for this autumn meeting, what demands they propose to put forward, what other alternative proposals they have in mind, I am sure that not only this House but the country at large would be greatly appreciative.
Nothing I have said detracts in any way from our satisfaction with the way in which the noble Viscount has presented this particular proposal. We complain that we have not had all the documents, and this must be a matter of some importance. The noble Viscount said that this country derives a small net benefit from its contributions to the ECSC, and we should of course be grateful for small mercies. We therefore are indebted to the noble Viscount, and we should not wish to resist the passing of the appropriate resolution.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord into a debate on the EEC, its agricultural policy, or even a broad-ranging debate on steel itself, on which we have had a number of discussions in the past. On the question of this order, and to deal first with the point that the noble Lord raised on the availability of documents, the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1951, and I believe that copies would be obtainable from the Library if they are still there. But certainly this is not a secret document, it was published ages and ages ago. The decision of the 18th March,
104
which I have before me, is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 50p net, Cmnd. 7936. I cannot offhand give the noble Lord an answer in relation to the 1980 ECSC budget, but I undertake to write to him on that third document.
I do not think it is fair to say that the countries in the Community, either individually or collectively, are paying no attention to the serious conditions in the steel industry which, as the noble Lord observed, is a situation that exists in other countries as well as in this country. One has to look at the remedial measures for the difficult situations in the steel producing areas in the country, and in all countries, in the context of national measures and international measures. The biggest part is the national measures, which we have been over in this House on a good few occasions quite recently. Large sums of money are being spent on remedial measures in relation to the necessary cutback in steel production over the Community as a whole, and in Britain arising from the reasons which we have discussed so often but which lie in the past in relation to the competitive nature of the British steel industry.
In relation to the suggestion that perhaps 100 million European units of account extra should be budgeted and spent, this too has been discussed in this House and in the other place when discussing the steel remedials. I have previously informed the House, as has my right honourable friend the other place, that the support for the measures put forward, mainly under the auspices of Commissioner Vredeling, has not been at all universal. At the first round really only Belgium was in favour of those proposals, and even they had qualifications on how the money should be spent.
Within a community one has to respect the right of one's partners, as well as one's own judgment, and to understand that some things which are best handled nationally and some are best handled on a Community basis. I cannot follow the noble Lord into the legality of transfer from the EEC budget. He said that he was not a Community lawyer, and I am certainly not one. I can assure him that it is the advice of the legal departments of Her Majesty's Government that in all probability such a transfer would not be legal, and that appears to be the opinion of others as well.

105
If the noble Lord would like me to give him some expert opinions in writing on the main areas on which that view is based, I should be prepared to do so. But I have to accept that my colleagues with the legal qualifications have come to that conclusion, I may say not with any enthusiasm because in this area we have major steel problems and we might well have considered that this was a road that could be followed. It is not only a question of the transfer to the ECSC budget, but it might not have been possible to use the money from the EEC budget for the purposes of ECSC. This does not, however, mean that the EEC industries are badly looked after so far as the EEC budget is available.
The noble Lord asks what is going to take place in the autumn, and asks me to ensure that Her Majesty's Government will press with—I have forgotten all the adjectives he used—great vigour that the contribution from countries to the ECSC budget on the existing basis should be increased in order that we should be in a position to take more benefits. I gave him the overall figures of our net very large benefit; much larger than any other country in the Community. I have on previous occasions told him that we have had something like 40 per cent. of the loans and 30 per cent. of the readaptation monies.
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord just to consider the position of the EEC, in which I believe, and the question whether it would be right for Her Majesty's Government to press with the utmost vigour in the way that he suggested in relation to the system as it works at the moment, on a steel tonnage basis; and I ask him to think about this in view of the various industries' movements, the levy being on the sealed tonnage basis and the split being, as I outlined it, of the special contribution. I ask him to consider, about tactics, what would be the best way of going about it and to take into consideration the fact that we are getting a very considerable and major benefit at the present time. He will perhaps give us the credit of wanting to ensure that we get the maximum possible benefit. I think if he considers the tactics of the situation against the fact that many other countries are putting in large sums of money, have major steel problems of their own and are getting nothing like the percentage out that they are putting in—
106
some others are beneficiaries, but overall that is the truth—he will perhaps give us the credit and leave it to us to negotiate in the autumn as seems most practicable in the circumstances; and perhaps he will welcome the continuation of this benefit to the United Kingdom, which is no more than a contribution to the remedial measures for the major problems which the Government are facing in the steel areas.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.32 until 8 p.m.]

HOUSING BILL
Consideration on Report continued, on Clause 23.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 20, line 24, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one which I regret was not tabled at Committee stage, but it was debated in Standing Committee "F" in another place. This subsection is most unsatisfactory as it stands and is causing considerable concern to local government officers and local government associations. The subsection enables the Secretary of State, by notice in writing, to require a public sector landlord to produce any document or supply any information which is specified in the notice. The subsection also imposes a statutory duty in the notice. The subsection also imposes a statutory duty upon an officer of a public sector landlord such as a local authority to produce such documents and information when able to do so without taking the instructions of the officer's employers. The Bill does not impose any penalty on an officer who commits a breach of the duty to be imposed by this subsection, but it would enable the Secretary of State to take civil proceedings against an officer and the legal expenses of such proceedings would

107
inevitably be a heavy financial burden on the officer concerned.
The concern of local government officers is that they will be placed in an intolerable position in that, as a result of the Bill, it is their duty to obey the Secretary of State, and that could conflict with instructions they might receive from their employers. Even the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association has expressed its concern with this subsection and has expressed the view that the Secretary of State's powers to give directions should be limited to the local authority and not directly to any officer of the authority. Furthermore, one wonders how the Secretary of State will know what officer in a local authority will provide him with the necessary documents and how he will know which officer in a local authority has the document that he requires.
Again the subsection does not state what the penalites for non-compliance are. No penalties are stated in the clause and individual officers, for reasons of professional conscience, may well not wish to comply. Surely they have the right to know what the penalties might be. I do not think this subsection is satisfactorily drafted at the present time and I hope that the noble Lord will be able, before Third Reading, to have another look at the wording of it. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this subsection allows the Secretary of State to serve on a landlord a notice requiring the submission of information that he needs to deal with a case over which he has intervened. The subsection provides that the officer of the landlord who has control of the information or documents required, or who is designated in the notice, is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the notice is complied with. This is a power which is very plainly needed: without it, a hostile landlord would be able to block progress on the right to buy, simply by refusing to tell the Secretary of State the facts that he needs to know. The noble Lord has suggested, however, that the subsection could produce conflicts of loyalty for the landlord's officers. I fail to see how this can be so. As one who is not without some experience of working with local government officers, I accept that they would always normally
108
look to elected members for their instructions, and that they would carry out those instructions faithfully and fully. I do not accept, however, that any conflict of loyalties or crisis of conscience is involved in this case, since the officer to whom a notice under subsection (5) was addressed would be under a clear, statutory obligation to comply. I do not believe that a reasonable elected member would be prepared to give, nor that an officer could accept, any instruction which purported to require him to break the law.
This amendment, as I have said, would remove a necessary element in this clause. I very much hope that we would never be in a position in which the powers given in Clause 23 would need to be invoked, but I am sure they must be available in a satisfactory form. I thought very carefully about this myself, based upon practical experience of what happens as regards the carrying out of statutory obligations, and so on, in practice regarding officers and members. I really see no conflict, because it has never been the case that officers have been other than anxious to point out to elected members—it has been pointed out in my experience many times—" you need to do this, because if you do not it will mean you are in breach of the law ". Nobody sets out to be that. I have as great a regard for the law-abiding attitude of local government officers as I have for local government members. At the same time, there is no doubt that there is, and has been, much made of what certain authorities or members would want to do to try to thwart the Government's intentions as regards rights to buy. Therefore, I think it is right that there should be at least a power of this kind which, first, one hopes would never be used and, secondly, which in practice will cause far less concern than the noble Lord may fear.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Lord in his reply did not in fact deal with the question of penalties. The subsection does not include any mention of penalities and I hope, despite what he has said, that he will look at that particular aspect of the subsection before we come to Third Reading. In view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Statutory declarations]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 22, line 25, after first ("landlord") insert ("the Housing Corporation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 30 with Amendment No. 29. These amendments make it clear that the Housing Corporation, as well as the Secretary of State or a landlord, may accept statutory declarations for right-to-buy purposes. Housing association tenants will have the right to a mortgage from the Housing Corporation, who may want to make use of statutory declarations when working out a tenant's morgage entitlement. I invite your Lordships to accept these small but useful amendments. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 25, after second ("landlord") insert ("Corporation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with the last amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 27 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 23, line 26, leave out ("I") and insert ("II").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a tiny error which has crept into Clause 27. Housing associations are registered with the Housing Corporation under Part II of the Housing Act 1974, not under Part I. I beg to move.
Schedule 3 [Tenancies which are not secure tenancies]:
8.9 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 110, line 24, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is very complicated, because my
110
amendments and the Government's amendments all seem to be intertwined—not in holy matrimony, but by sonic means or other! My Amendment No. 32 goes with Amendments Nos. 42, 44, 48, and 39. I have in mind another amendment, which I shall table later, and which had I put it down today would have been a manuscript amendment to Schedule 1; but I did not think that it would be extremely popular. This, too, is tied up with the other amendments. The purpose of these amendments, Nos. 32, 42, 44 and 48—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, would not Amendment No. 48 also be suitable for inclusion in the discussion on these amendments?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I did say Amendment No. 48. The amendments are Nos. 32, 42, 44, 48, and 39. The purpose of these amendments is to give security of tenure to those in tied accommodation, but also to allow their eviction where the tenant is no longer in the employment of the landlord and the dwelling-house is needed for another incoming worker. In addition, Amendment No. 39 provides that if a tied tenant has had two years' continuous employment he is entitled to alternative accommodation. In contrast, the Government's approach in Amendment No. 33 is further to exempt from any security of tenure those occupying accommodation in
schools or social service facilities where that accommodation is linked to employment. I shall come back to that point in a moment. It is not that I am opposed to the Government's Amendments, but to me the missing link is that there is no provision for alternative accommodation when the tenant loses the tied accommodation.
Amendment No. 32 deletes the exemption to security of tenure of those who occupy accommodation for the better performance of their duties. This follows what I believe was discussed in Committee; it also follows what was said in the Rent (Agriculture) Act. Amendment No. 38 inserts a new ground, Ground 14, which allows eviction in the case of tied workers who are no longer in employment, thus otherwise giving them the same rights as others in the public sector.
At this point I should mention the amendment that I have not in fact tabled,

111
since I believe that the picture is not complete if I do not refer to it. It is a consequential amendment to the other tied accommodation amendments, which give tied tenants security of tenure but allow eviction on certain grounds. As a result of that change those in tied accommodation would also have the right to buy as they become secure tenants. However, this would lead to a very difficult situation where the local authority could evict a tied worker if it needed the house for some other worker, but if the original worker served notice of the right to buy, he would gain de facto security. I have not tabled an amendment relating to that point, but I do not think that the overall case is clear unless I refer to the intention behind it.
Amendment No. 44 inserts a new ground for eviction, where a person who was a tied worker ceases employment and the local authority needs the dwelling-house for another worker. This means that the landlord does not have an absolute right to evict tied workers as in the Bill as presently drafted, but must show that the dwelling-house is genuinely needed. Amendment No. 44 is to be preferred to Amendment No. 42. I fear that these two amendments are fairly similar. The later amendment seems the better, but bearing in mind that the Government have down a number of amendments, I left in the earlier amendment in the hope that between us we could reach the best solution. Amendment No. 42 contains a less broad definition of a tied worker—
"for the better performance of his duties "—
which had created the worry that some tied workers would be given permanent security of tenure with no redress from the landlord. Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 44 is the better alternative.
Amendment No. 39 provides that those workers evicted on Ground 14, if they have worked for two years, will have to be provided with alternative accommodation. This is similar to the period for qualification provided in the Rent (Agriculture) Act. However, it differs slightly from that Act in two aspects. First, the worker has a right to alternative accommodation (rather than providing only that local authorities use their best endeavours) but, on the other hand, the local authority has the absolute right of
112
possession rather than being dependent on a judgment that is subjective. This seems sensible also because in most cases the rehousing authority will be the same authority as that which is seeking possession, and in this way the situation is not entirely similar to that under the Rent (Agriculture) Act. I believe that the Government amendments and one of my amendments are very similar to the AMA amendment, which also attempts to deal with this question.
This is a very complicated matter and probably I have said enough at this stage. Perhaps it would be useful if the noble Lord opposite spoke to the Government amendments covering this matter, so that perhaps we can try to sort it out together. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 32, and Amendment No. 44 also tabled, would be to give security of tenure to tenants of local authorities when those tenancies are granted as a consequence of their employment. It would also expose the tenants to a ground for possession. Amendment No. 42 would do the same for accommodation occupied under a contract of employment. It is hardly clear from this duality which test the Opposition want to apply. Incidentally, if I may gently tease the noble Baroness's tail, I should add that her party's Bill did not contain any such provision, either.
This Bill as drafted excludes from security of tenure those who occupy their dwellings as a condition of their contract of employment. We believe that there is a basic difference between the circumstances of the tenant who has his house because of the job he does, and those of the normal run of tenant who is housed by the landlord as a function of the landlord's housing responsibilities. In the first case the housing is associated with the provision of a service, and the housing is provided to ensure that the service can be performed satisfactorily. In the second case the housing is provided from public funds in order to meet housing need. It is in those circumstances that security of tenure and the associated rights are appropriate. Where housing on the spot is vital to the job, as in the case of a caretaker of a block of flats or a warden of a sheltered housing scheme, for example, it is vitally important for management that

113
they can readily obtain possession of the housing should the employee concerned leave the job.
Therefore, we do not believe that security of tenure is appropriate in these cases of genuinely tied accommodation, even with a ground for possession limited, as in Amendment No. 44. We also realise the special nature of residential social service and educational establishments. Amendment No. 42, however, would reduce the security of the local authority employee who holds his accommodation merely as a consequence of his employment by subjecting him, and those tenants covered by the present exclusion in Schedule 3, to a ground for possession. This the Government do not wish to do. Where a teacher, for example, is living in an ordinary council house provided as an incentive to him to take up a job, we believe that he should have the same right as any other tenant to be secure in that dwelling. I consider (with, I think, noble Lords sitting opposite me) that we should not deny or reduce security of tenure without good reason. I am therefore perhaps a little surprised that they should seek to introduce such a wide ground for possession. There is not even any provision for the tenant to be notified that the ground might be used against him.
The amendment requires that, whichever of the new grounds applies, suitable alternative accommodation is to be available if the tenant has worked for the employer for more than two years. This is a considerable burden to place on public sector landlords as a matter of course. The Government hope, of course, that they will look with sympathy at claims for the rehousing of those who have occupied tied accommodation, but this amendment would force them to give preferential treatment to people who in normal circumstances might otherwise come well down the list. It would also, I think, possibly open up the chance of abuse by encouraging people to take a particular job in the certainty that, whatever happens, they will be permanently rehoused after two years. This would occur regardless of whether the employee had performed his job satisfactorily, whether he had been dismissed for dishonesty and whatever his financial and personal circumstances.
114
I am sure that in the normal course of events an employee in tied housing owned by a public sector landlord will be rehoused by his landlord when he leaves the job on retirement or for health reasons. Local authorities and others do this voluntarily in genuine cases. Beyond that, I do not think they should be required to go. Nor, apparently, did the Government of which the noble Baroness was a member, when they introduced their Bill. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say when he will speak to the Government Amendment No. 33; and would it not be to the convenience of the House if he did so now, before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made up her mind what to do with her amendment?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am quite content to do that if that is what the House wishes.
Baroness BIRK: I agree that I said when moving my amendment that they were very complicated, and I think the position is very difficult. If I may say so on the assumption that the noble Lord has not sat down, there seems to be some misunderstanding because under the Act I am talking about, the Rent (Agriculture) Act —through, it is true, the operation of the A DHACs—i f your Lordships remember, the local authorities had to use every reasonable endeavour to try to find alternative accommodation. In fact, that is working out very well, so there seems to have been rather a mistake over that.
Furthermore, although I absolutely understand that this created a difficulty for the noble Lord when I had to do it at the last moment, I did mention an amendment that I might move which would prevent the person in the tied cottage then exercising the right to buy, which could create problems; but I did not table that amendment today because I thought it was too late to do so. But if we could deal with them altogether, perhaps we might be able to work something out.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I will speak, then, in effect, to Amendment No. 33 because I think that might be

115
helpful. The Government have considered with very great care the problem raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, when he moved what was Amendment No. 87 in Committee. He spoke of the problems the drafting of the present exclusion, which deliberately covers only strictly tied accommodation, might create for social service and similar establishments. After much discussion with him and with my noble friend Lady Faithful!, I think it would be fair to say that we now understand the problems better, and I am very grateful to them both.
My Lords, we did not feel able to make a change as wide-ranging as that suggested by the noble Viscount. As I said during our debate on that amendment, we do not want to remove from security any more people than is really necessary. That is why this amendment is specifically restricted to dwellings forming part of buildings, or in the grounds of buildings, held for social services or education purposes. In addition, the tenancy must have been granted to an employee of the local authority concerned on terms providing that it shall come to an end when the tenant ceases to be employed by the landlord. This covers what are known, I believe, as service tenancies, in those particular circumstances.
I should like to make it clear to the House that we are not excluding from security of tenure houses which form part of the ordinary housing stock. The dwellings falling within this exclusion will be dwellings not held under Part V of the Housing Act 1957, though not all dwellings outside Part V, of course, will be within the exclusion. What we are seeking to exclude are tenancies of dwellings within establishments catering for those with particular special needs—that is, old people's homes, schools for disturbed children—where it might not always be reasonable, or possible, to require in a contract of employment that the employee should occupy that particular accommodation, under pain of losing his job. If secure tenancies arose in a flat within these establishments, we accept that there would be special difficulties—for example, when an employment came to an end—and it might be difficult for the local authority to regain possession of the flat.
116
I am sure your Lordships will agree that we should do what we can to help the already difficult staffing situation in these special establishments. That is why we have introduced what I feel is a worthwhile amendment. I have no doubt that there will be some cases of merit which we have not succeeded in helping, but I believe that in this amendment we have dealt with the case of the problem as put to us, and I think this is as far as we can go bearing in mind our general wish to extend security and the right to buy to as many people as possible. I would beg to move that amendment when we come to it, and hope that my dealing with it now is helpful in the consideration of the previous amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I wonder whether I might take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister very much indeed. The directors of social services throughout the country are very grateful indeed to the Minister for having effected this amendment because it will make very much easier the staffing situation, which, as the Bill stood before, would have been difficult.
I wish to ask the Minister a question. I know the answer, but perhaps I may ask him this question in order to give reassurance to the national child-care voluntary organisation, which comprise such organisations as Dr. Barnardo's, the Church of England Children's Society, National Children's Homes and Crusade of Rescue. I want to reassure myself and them that the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, referred to in the amendment, refers to them, because, of course, they look after local authority children on behalf of the local authority, and I think they would be very grateful if it were possible to have that reassurance, particularly as it would be recorded in Hansard.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for having raised this question in the first place. May I say now that I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Bellwin for writing to me upon precisely the point that my noble friend Lady Faithful has just been mentioning, which is the voluntary bodies carrying out social service

117
functions. ft is quite clear from that letter that they were not affected in the first place.
May I ask this one question: is paragraph (b) of the new subsection set out in the Government Amendment No. 33 wide enough to cover a housing association employing a warden in a sheltered scheme? A housing association is, of course, a landlord for the purpose of this Bill.
8.30 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, so far as I am aware—and I have to put it that way because I think this is something that I should like to confirm later—unless the institutions to which my noble friend refers, Dr. Barnardo and the Church of England Children's Society, operate through a housing association (which I suppose it is always possible for them to do) the proposals in the amendment would not cover them. I put it that way carefully, because I am not certain whether that is the intention of the amendment. I think that is probably the exact position at the moment. I would have to try to ascertain if that is so and whether or not, if it is so, it is something we ought to think about. I am sorry I cannot be more positive on what is to my noble friend an important point. At the moment I cannot be more forthcoming on it but I recognise this is not as helpful as my noble friend would like it to be.
Viscount CRAIGAVON: My Lords, can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for giving what seems to be 98 per cent. of what I was asking for in my previous amendment and also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her significant influence in persuading the Government of the desirability of this move. Without this amendment, I think there would have been a risk of slow thrombosis in the social services in one or two years' time. This has now been avoided. To take into account the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is saying that we should trust to this extent the local authorities in their discretion in rehousing. I feel that the amendment as put down by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is sufficient. I should like to know from the noble
118
Baroness, Lady Birk, to what extent if Lord Bellwin's amendment is accepted her other amendments cease to be relevant.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is satisfied with the Minister's reply. It did not seem to me, as the amendments are drafted, that they take in all the organisations she mentioned. It is difficult to ask a question of the Minister through the noble Baroness. I should like to get that straight before I continue with my winding up.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister (if this is the way to do it) whether he would not agree that the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in the first schedule covers all these voluntary organisations, because those voluntary organisations carry out for the local authorities the work which the local authorities are not themselves doing at the moment? The Minister has said that he will look into it. I would be quite happy with that.
Viscount GAGE: My Lords, I did not understand one thing my noble friend Lord Bellwin said. Is a flat constructed for the warden of an old persons' home for the aged, protected? Is it excluded?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, on the latter point raised by my noble friend, it would depend on what were the objectives of the housing association if they were operating (if "operating" is the right word) within the social services content of the Act—which I am grateful to my noble friend for handing to me. Then the flat would be excluded in that way. If I can be helpful to my noble friend on this, she, with her great knowledge of the subject, refers to the Act and to what I said regarding the bodies included in them. I said I was not certain of this point. I went on to say that I recognise her great concern and I would certainly undertake to look at this point. She is probably right on it. I should not even question the possibility that with her specialist knowledge she might not be right. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can enlighten us. In any case, I will undertake to look at that point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think this matter is much too serious to

119
be left in the air. We must clear this up one way or the other. I understood the noble Lord to say when he was replying to his noble friend Lady Faithfull that four of the major voluntary organisations working in this field which were named by the noble Baroness, would be covered if they were working through (I thought the Minister said) a housing association. But they are not. The implication of that is that if he says they are covered if they are working through a housing association, and they are not; then they are not covered. We ought to get that clear.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, to be helpful, I said that if they were a housing association they were covered; but I went on to say, on the assumption that they were not covered, I would still be willing to have a look at that. I think the Bill as we have it now before us and this amendment do not affect the position of those living in tied accommodation. These bodies are not landlord authorities—unless they are housing associations—so that security and the right to buy does not apply to them in any case. I think we are chasing ourselves in something of a circle. I think they are in any case not going to create a problem; they are excluded in any event. Therefore, I do not think we will have any problem with them at all. The right to buy does not apply. Therefore, I think that I can satisfy those who are concerned on this. Whether we get there one way or the other does not matter, so long as we get to the end position that we require. On this, I am glad to say all is well in the end.
Baroness BIRK: It is not all quite well. There are the amendments I moved and the noble Lord asked me how they fitted in. If I can be brief, I recognise absolutely the difficulty which the Government amendments seek to relieve. I believe the relaxation of security should only operate in relation to tenancies created before the commencement of the Act. Tenancies of this kind should be subject to security thus deterring local authorities from creating unnecessary tied housing. The Minister made the point clearly in the Committee on 30th June in columns 157 to 160, when he said that the authority should consider carefully before creating such accommodation and the relaxation
120
in security should not only be limited to existing tenancies but to take the form of a ground for possession of a right after two years' employment to suitable alternative accommodation. This is preferable to a blanket exclusion, as the Government propose, although we recognise the need with our own amendments to detach security from the right to buy.
The problem of right to buy arises in my amendment and not in the Government's. All the amendments are aimed to deal with the problems of tied accommodation. Some of us feel—although the Minister said at the last gasp that he thought it was all right—that it is not all right enough. I do not think that he was quite as certain about it as he would like to feel. It would be helpful to the House if it were taken back, and if we could get it sorted out for Third Reading. If he does that, it would then give him an opportunity to look at the amendments that I have been moving. I should be very happy to write to him further if there is any other problem to see whether we can get this interlinked. I am not objecting to the Government's amendments. I am saying that I would rather they went further in one way and less far in another. We have reached the end of where we can deal with this across the House now. We want some further clarification on several points. I am still not happy with the reply that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell received.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, again, at the end of the day I was absolutely satisfied—I would not say so categorically unless I felt I was able to do so—that the institutions to which my noble friend referred are excluded. Therefore, the problem does not arise for them. I am most reluctant to take back anything that is not absolutely essential at this stage. We probably took back too much at the Committee stage in an endeavour to be helfpul and try to do things. Of course, I understand the attitude taken by the noble Baroness, and I am grateful for that. There are one or two things coming along which are special but we have brought forward the amendment to meet the situation and I have now confirmed that it meets it entirely. I would not say that if I did not think so. I hope that we can proceed on that basis.
Baroness BIRK: With leave, my Lords, I will say that in that case I will study Hansard carefully as so much has been said about this. If I want to put down an amendment on Third Reading I will do so. If I am worried about any query I will get in touch with the Minister in the meantime.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it seems a long time ago but when I was answering Amendment No. 32 I made a slight mistake. In my first paragraph I correctly referred to Amendment No. 44 and Amendment No. 42. In the third paragraph of my speech I referred to Amendment No. 44 and Amendment No. 42 again. I have to make an awful confession: I should have referred to Amendment No. 42 first and Amendment No. 44 second. I therefore ask that noble Lords will take note of this in their records and accept my apologies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 110, line 36, at end insert—
("Social service and educational premises
2A. A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the tenant is an employee of the landlord and—

(a) the terms of the tenancy provide for the tenancy to terminate on the tenant ceasing to be employed by the landlord;

(b) the dwelling-house is held by the landlord for the purpose of any of its functions under the Education Act 1944 or under any of the enactments specified in Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970; and

(c) the dwelling-house forms part of a building held for those purposes or is within the curtilage of such a building.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I formally beg to move it.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 110, line 42, at end insert—
("(2) A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the dwelling-house has been acquired for rehabilitation and the dwelling-house is used by the landlord, pending rehabilitation, at temporary housing accommodation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am now a split
122
personality! I have had the opportunity—and I am very grateful—of having talked to the noble Lord the Minister and his advisers. In part they have convinced me that I could withdraw my amendment. I say that I am a split personality for this reason. I deeply believe in this Bill from the point of view of the sale of council houses. I deeply believe in this Bill from the point of view of a tenant's charter and security of tenure. On the other hand, I am still worried—and would therefore put it in the form of a question to the Minister—over temporary accommodation owned either by the local authorities or housing associations which are empty and therefore short term, and which are going to be rehabilitated.
I am very well aware of the fact—and I would be the first to agree with this—that to open the door to local authorities circumventing the principle of the right to buy would be wrong, because I believe in the right to buy. I would ask the Minister whether he would not agree that the three tests of insecure tenants are met: that is, that housing for rehabilitation—not development—is in the first place temporary accommodation. When I say "temporary accommodation" I am also looking at Ground 8 which, if people refuse to move, gives the landlord the right to gain possession of the property. The tenants would be temporary and would be short term. Such property is not the normal housing stock.
Therefore, I would ask my noble friend the Minister whether we can be assured that local authorities are not going to leave empty houses although they are going to be rehabilitated when there are a certain group of people without any housing accommodation at all. I know that under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act homeless people are covered. I know that under this Bill students are covered and mobility of labour is covered.
There are certain people not covered: for instance, the young couple whose points are very low on the housing list because they have been only recently married; they have no children and it will take a couple of years before they can get a council house and they therefore could not possibly be secure tenants. Another example is the young teacher and secretary whose parents move away from the city but they want to stay and they cannot

123
find accommodation. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend whether he can assure us that the local authorities will be advised to use that property.
I withdrew an amendment at Committee saying that housing committees should be informed every quarter of empty properties. I withdrew that because I realised that was trespassing on the responsibilities of local authorities. I would further ask the Minister what housing associations will do if they purchase property or have property allocated to them by the local authority which they wish to rehabilitate—not develop—and whether the housing associations will be able to use those properties.
As I said at the beginning, I am in some difficulty having set down this amendment because I have seen the Minister and his advisers and I would be the last one to want to infringe the rights of tenants to be secure tenants or the sale of council houses. I therefore put this to the Minister and would be very interested to hear his reply.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I understand the fear that my noble friend has expressed, that landlords will find it harder to use shortlife property. I think, however, that she need not be as concerned as I know she has been about this matter. The exclusion from security of tenure in paragraph 3 covers all tenancies of property acquired for "development" within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1972. I should like to emphasise how wide this definition goes. It covers converting an old house into several flats or bedsitters. It covers any work which will substantially affect the external appearance of the building. It covers a change of use; for example, from individual units to a hostel. It also covers, of course, cases where there is to be demolition which will involve either a change of use or a different structure.
Even where the work does not amount to development, there will still be the possibility of using such property, which is available for only a short time, to house persons who fall within one of the excluded categories. It would not, I feel, be too difficult to match these people to those dwellings which do not fall within the exclusion, if it were really essential
124
that a secure tenancy should not arise. Lettings to students, to people moving for employment reasons and seeking a permanent home, and to the homeless will all not be secure before a certain time has elapsed.
Where a dwelling which is scheduled for improvement has to be vacated for the work to be done, there is always a mandatory ground for possession available, provided that suitable alternative accommodation is provided. This, I believe, is the way ordinary tenants should be treated if they have to be moved, and the present exclusion is quite deliberately tightly drawn.
There is a further difficulty with this amendment, in that it would be extremely difficult to know what constitutes rehabilitation. In fact, much major work will fall within the definition of development "used in planning legislation. The Government do not want people to be deprived of security and the right to buy because relatively minor works—perhaps not even sizeable enough to justify seeking possession under Ground 8 in Schedule flare to be carried out at some future date. The definition of "development" is a tested one, and I submit that that in itself is a great advantage.
As on the last amendment, I am most anxious to he absolutely accurate in what I am saying, but I do not know whether I can give my noble friend the assurance that local authorities will not leave houses empty. Practice is this area varies so much from authority to authority. Some are seemingly not as concerned—I choose my words carefully—as others about keeping houses empty, in whatever condition. That is probably the fairest way of putting it. I know of many, however, who are most anxious about this. In some ways, perhaps they are anxious out of self-interest, because if a house is empty it is not only not helping the local housing situation, but it also means that the authority do not get rent, rates and all that go with them. While I recognise that shortlife accommodation is of a special kind, I could not give an assurance. I only hope that, with the emphasis which has been placed on what is happening in housing, there will be a much greater concern by local authorities about dwellings, of whatever kind and for whatever purpose, that are empty.

125
I do not know whether I have answered all the points to satisfy my noble friend whose concern I appreciate, because we have talked about this matter. But I think I have been able to assuage many of her concerns about the whole matter. Certainly, the Bill gives considerable flexibility, and "flexibility" is really the key word here. If we give as much flexibility as possible, it is certain that authorities will, at least, have the opportunity to maximise the use of this kind of accommodation.
With that, my noble friend may, at least, feel sufficiently satisfied for the time being. As with so many of the other points that we talked about earlier, there is much more room as time goes on to talk about so many aspects of housing, even after this Bill is well put away, as it will be.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, particularly about the broad construction of the word "development" in the Town and Country Planning Act. I am also grateful for what he said about the various categories of tenants who will not become secure by the fact that they have a tenancy. I am a little disappointed that he could not go a step or two further, and say that no local authority or housing association need board up a house which is empty for fear that if they put somebody in it that will become a secure tenancy, and that they will never be able to do the rehabilitation which they want to do. This is a very important amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, simply because for too long there has been a total scandal of boarded-up and bricked-up houses, which is something we all want to end.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very concerned about this amendment and I cannot say that I am very happy at the Minister's reply. Unfortunately, this situation is something of which we have all been aware for a long time. Whichever Government are in power, it is terrible to see houses boarded up, longer and longer waiting lists and either squatters getting in or nobody being able to use a property. In the past, there has been some use made of shortlife property. The GLC have done a great deal in that field, particularly
126
for charitable organisations, and when they start to rehabilitate a house people go somewhere else. But if the situation is left as it is, then I am afraid, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is afraid, that this practice will continue. There will be more and more boarded-up houses, especially as it will take longer for local authorities to get around to rehabilitation now that their resources have been cut.
If this amendment is not accepted, there will be two direct consequences. First, housing authorities will be extremely limited in their ability to let property on a shortlife basis in future, and they will revert to the practice of boarding-up houses until work can commence, which practice we are trying to break up. Secondly, before the Bill comes into force, many councils will be under pressure to terminate licences granted to shortlife users, so that they will not have the responsibility of finding permanent accommodation for these non-priority cases. This is very important, and in that case one can hardly blame an authority for taking pre-emptive action.
At the Committee stage, the Minister argued that this exclusion would remove a tenant's right to buy, but it must be remembered that the amendment would relate only to property specifically acquired for rehabilitation and not to a housing authority's permanent housing stock. It would also apply only to property pending rehabilitation and not to property that had been improved. Furthermore, it would apply only where a property had been let to tenants as temporary accommodation, and not to tenants who occupied the property as sitting tenants when it was purchased. In that case, I cannot see who would be denied the right to buy; the answer is no one.
If a tenant occupying a property awaiting improvement wished to exercise a right to buy, the public sector landlord could gain possession under Ground 8 in Schedule 4 and, as Ground 8 is mandatory, the court having granted possession, the right to buy could not be exercised under Schedule I, Part II, paragraph 1. Therefore, the argument is not about whether such tenants should be excluded from the right to buy, which could not be exercised, but whether housing authorities should be obliged to provide permanent housing for non-priority cases who have

127
been allowed to occupy property on a shortlife basis.
The issue is a simple choice between whether housing authorities should be allowed to continue making good use of property which is awaiting improvement by letting it to shortlife tenants, or whether, instead, they should be compelled to revert to the former practice of boarding-up, inviting squatters, incurring a loss of revenue and, for several years, removing thousands of dwellings from the stock available for renting. It seems to me—and I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and to the questions posed by the noble Baroness—that this is an amendment of great importance and I think that it should be accepted by the Government. There is nothing else in the Bill which deals with a problem that Members on all sides of the House recognise. I put down my name to the amendment and if the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is not prepared to press it, I am.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, if the noble Baroness wishes to press the amendment, it is, of course, her right so to do, but I certainly cannot accept many of the points she has just made about what local authorities do or do not do, and what attitudes they take or do not take to people who are in this kind of accommodation. It has not been my experience that local authorities try to take advantage of any situation so as to get out of any obligations that they may have to house people. That is not so; it does not happen that way in practice, in my experience at least. While I cannot answer for every local authority, certainly I can speak for all those which I do know, and they are very many.
I do not have the concerns which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has expressed. I spent some time looking carefully into this matter, together with my noble friend Lady Faithfull, whose knowledge of this area is so specialised, and I was satisfied at the end of the day that what we are proposing will not have an adverse effect upon this kind of property and accommodation. Quite the contrary; it will have a beneficial effect. I just do not accept that all local authorities are waiting to take advantage of people in these circumstances. I am sorry if the noble
128
Baroness for her part wishes to press the amendment, but I have satisfied myself in an area which has given cause for much careful consideration.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was not blaming local authorities. I was saying that, if left unchanged, the situation would put local authorities in this extremely difficult and anomalous situation. I was not saying that they would behave maliciously but that they would feel that they had no alternative. I want the amendment because I want to give local authorities a feeling of security in which they can go ahead and let this property on short tenancies. It was for that reason that I very much hoped the Government would accept the amendment. I do not want to press it, but if the Government do not feel that they can accept the amendment then I must do so.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I have no regrets about having put down this amendment because I think it is very right and proper that we should have aired this extremely difficult situation. I have been in the North lately, and in my own area there is evidence—indeed, there is evidence throughout the country—that local authorities are taking a different line from the one they have taken in the past, and that they are much more aware than before of their duties towards those who need housing and about using up stock in a way that can meet the problems in their areas. I am glad that we have had this debate. I am sure that local authorities and the housing associations will read Hansard with care. I bee leave to withdraw the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Several noble Lords: No!
9.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fulton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Aylestone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Gifford, L.

Bacon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Balogh, L.

Collison, L.

Hale, L.

Banks, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hampton, L.

Barrington, V.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

David, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bernstein, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hooson, L.

Beswick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Denington, B.

Hughes, L.

Blease, L.

Diamond, L.

Janner, L.

Blyton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Brockway, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rhodes, L.

Strauss, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Maelor, L.

Segal, L.

Wade, L.

Milverton, L.

Simon, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Soper, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stamp, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Willis, L.

Peart, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Phillips, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Strathspey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Gage, V.

Orkney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bessborough, E.

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

Sandford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Savile, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hawke, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Spens, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L,

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Trenchard, V.

Denman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vaizey, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Eccles, V,

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elles, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Westbury, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Seear, B.

Chitnis, L.

Kaldor, L.

Segal, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stone, L.

David, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strauss, L.

Denington, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wade, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Foot, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Gifford, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hampton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Avon, E.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.].

Belstead, L.

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

Savile, L.

Bessborough, E.

Selsdon, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Bradford, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Cockfield, L,

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lyell, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cranbrooke, E.

McFadzean, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mansfield, E.

Trenchard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Vaizey, L.

Denman, L.

Middleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ferrers, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Yarborough, E.

Gage, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Young, B

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
9.13 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 113, line 4, at end insert—
("13. A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the landlord is a housing trust which is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960 or is a housing association which is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960 and the principal object of such trust or association is to provide short term housing accommodation for persons who by reason of domestic marital or similar problems are in need of short term accommodation for themselves or their families.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are a substantial number of charities who provide short-term accommodation for unmarried mothers and others in need. This is on a rehabilitation or temporary basis in order to help them overcome immediate problems or to provide a period for readjustment. There are nearly always very long waiting lists, and in one case I know there are 10 people waiting for one vacancy. The Bill as it stands gives secure tenancies to such persons, and they must be so informed. However, Ground 9 of Schedule 4 to the Bill allows the charity to go to the court for repossession if the continued occupation of the dwelling-house would conflict with the objects of a charity and alternative accommodation is available. This sounds quite reasonable, but it imposes

135
have done so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Grounds and orders for possession]:
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("13") and insert ("14").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Birk. Amendment No. 38 looks innocuous enough, but it has to be read as a pair with Amendment No. 43; and what I have to say will make much more sense if your Lordships will look at No. 43, as the two go together. I will, if I may, speak to them together. The purpose of the two amendments is to grant to the courts an additional reason for granting possession of a secure tenancy in those cases where the accommodation has been inhabited by a husband and wife or by a man and woman living together and the relationship has broken down; the local authority either requires the accommodation to be occupied by one of the parties and their children, or the local authority has granted a tenancy to that party and her children and needs the accommodation for another family.
This amendment was moved in Committee and withdrawn. It covers what is today a very frequent situation where there has been a marriage breakdown, or breakdown of relationship, and the woman and children leave the matrimonial home, or the home where the parties have been living, and seek help, often at a woman's refuge; she then applies to the local authority and says, "Will you transfer the tenancy from my co-habitee's name or husband's name into my name? "Time and again up and down the country local authorities have done just that in cases where it is clearly the wife and the children, or the woman and the children, who need to be living in the home.
Under the Bill, if, for example, a man and woman are living together, with
136
children, and the woman and children have been forced to go, or have gone because of the strain of the relationship, and the man refuses to leave, he has a secure tenancy and there is nothing that can take it away from him; except, if he is a married man, the court can, maybe two years later, order the tenancy to be transferred to the woman. If it is not a married relationship that man can keep that home, designed for a family, as long as he wishes, and with it the right to buy. The woman and children will be homeless. The local authority will be bound to rehouse them as homeless persons. So the local authority will be using two family units to house one family.
The reply in Committee was entirely negative. It was said that it was objectionable for a local authority to be deciding about who should live in a council flat before questions of custody have been decided by a court. I fail to see the relevance of that reply because no one, so far as I know, has raised any objection by and large about the way in which local authorities have been exercising this power time and again in the past. No one is prejudiced if this ground for possession is inserted. The woman and her children—it normally is the woman; but it would work the same the other way round—will be able to go back into the home where they have been living. The man will be re-housed in accommodation suitable for him. The local authority will be able to use their stock to the full. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bellwin recognised, when we discussed this amendment previously, that the principle behind this amendment is that on the break-up of a family a pubic sector landlord should be able to evict the tenant partner in order to reinstate the other, or because the other partner has been rehoused elsewhere.
I recognise that there is widespread support for the idea that the spouse or partner with responsibility for dependants should generally be the one to be given precedence if the occupation of the family home is in dispute. However, my noble friend explained her objection to the notion as embodied in this amendment, that the landlord should be able to make the decision about this before questions of

137
custody and property have been considered by the appropriate court at the time of the divorce or legal separation.
Legislation in this country governs the matter of rights to the matrimonial home on divorce. This legislation will apply to secure tenancies under the Bill, Schedule 24, paragraphs 14 to 16. I can see no case for giving either local authorities or other public sector landlords the opportunity to make a prior judgment—and I emphasise the words "prior judgment"—about who shall get the tenancy of a home in the context of managing their housing stock. This is rightly the province of the courts in the context of matrimonial law. In most cases, there will, I believe, be a settlement on a commonsense basis where the spouse who does not have the children will agree to leave the dwelling until the court finally awards the tenancy in the light of decisions on the custody of children. Where there is a genuine dispute, it is surely the court and not—I repeat, not—the landlord who should decide.
It is, I realise, the case that in England and Wales the matrimonial homes legislation, other than certain provisions of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act does not apply to people who are co-habiting. That argues, in our view, against our amendments which would treat cohabitees in the same way as the separated spouse for the purposes of this particular provision. We should be consistent, we think, in recognising the greater claim a legal spouse has on the matrimonial home.
I am, of course, aware that a similar ground has been included in the Scottish Bill. That is because there is as yet no equivalent to our matrimonial homes legislation in Scotland. If a landlord chose to use the ground for possession proposed in the amendment—and I am sure he would sometimes be put under considerable pressure to do so—it would fall under an obligation to provide suitable alternative accommodation for the displaced partner. Again, we do not accept that this further duty is always appropriate. Where the landlord and the parties concerned can agree voluntarily to settle the matter in this way and the accommodation is available, then of course it is up to them. But I do not believe it should be a further obligation on the landlord.
138
I do not accept either that there is any reason to adopt this proposed ground because it would simply enable landlords to do in future what they are perfectly entitled to do already. That possibility only arises at present because public sector landlords and their tenants have not so far been subject to any statutory rules about the tenants' security. Introducing these rules is a fundamental part of this Bill. When they exist it does not, I believe, make sense to incorporate in them what amounts to a specific power to decide between competing claims which ought to be settled elsewhere in the courts. In the light of all the circumstances, I do not think these landlords on the whole want that responsibility. Nor does it properly belong with them. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
9.35 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I must say that I am very disappointed with the Government's reply to this amendment. I should have thought that there was rather a strong case for the landlord being able to anticipate the subsequent judgment of the court. Then, if the landlord happened to get it wrong, he could be put right by the court. In the interim period, which may be quite long, we would avoid the situation of a landlord having to keep on the husband as a secure tenant and finding extra accommodation for the wife and the children. It seems to me very undesirable that two units should have to be provided for the same family. Unless my noble friend can say something rather more helpful, I very much hope that the amendment will be pressed.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, am I really understanding my noble friend correctly? Is he saying that he wishes landlords to have the right to take decisions on these matters rather than the court?
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order to speak again, but I said that the court would have a later chance to correct anything that the landlord had done that was not legally correct.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, the point is that very often it takes a very long time to get to the matrimonial court. I have

Fortescue, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gage, V.

Mansfield, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Marley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gisborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gowrie, E.

Mont Bretton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teviot, L.

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

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

Trenchard, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hatherton, L.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Savile, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lyell, L.

Selsdon, L.

Westbury, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Yarborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
9.50 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
"Distress for rent
(—(1) No distress for the rent of any dwelling-house let under a secure tenancy shall be levied except with the leave of the county court.
(2)Subsection (1) above does not apply to distress levied under section 137 of the County Courts Act 1959.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this raises the question of the remedy of distress for rents in respect of local authority accommodation. We debated this in Committee and I do not propose to go over the same ground now. The amendment is designed to see that it is no longer possible for local authorities to send bailiffs into the homes of those who are in default even of a small amount of rent without any sort of control by the courts. It is an old-fashioned remedy which has been roundly condemned by committee after committee, and even the Conservative Party about a year ago said it was in favour of abolishing it, or at any rate of abolishing it without the leave of the courts.
As was pointed out on Committee, the Conservative Party have gone back on that and they have changed their minds and still want distress. This amendment is very modest; it provides that if a local authority wants to go in and seize the goods of a rent defaulter it should have to go to court to get permission first. That is not very extreme. I wait to hear whether on this occasion the Government can give a better answer. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this matter was discussed at some length in another place and in Committee here by your Lordships. I repeat that the Government do not lightly dismiss the concern expressed about the operation of the distraint system. On the other hand, we have strong representations from the local authority associations and from individual local authorities of all political persuasions that nothing should be done to alter the right of public sector landlords to take direct action and distrain on goods where this seemed the right course.
146
I appreciate that the amendment would not abolish distraint as a method of dealing with rent arrears, and I understand the reasons why it has been put down. However, we must recognise that the practical effect of the amendment would be to remove much of the value of distraint as a means of taking quick and early action, and tenants would soon become aware of this. The associations also argued powerfully about the extent to which the threat of distraint —not the actual use of the measure but the threat of it—could be effective in recouping arrears.
We all know that rent arrears represent a persistent problem for local authorities and the amount outstanding at the end of March 1979 was about £70 million. This is a sum we cannot ignore at any time, but least of all in the present climate. I think this should be stressed: there are already safeguards on the use of distraint, as your Lordships will be aware. Bailiffs have to be given a certificate by the county court under the distress for rent rules. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor last year increased the security that the court may require before a certificate is granted and has agreed also to look again at the distress for rent rules which regulate the granting of bailiffs' certificates, to see whether they need strengthening.
In addition, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction wrote on 29th April to the local authority associations, asking them if they would review the use of distraint and consider whether they should issue guidance to their members. He has already had replies from two of the associations and will be discussing with them the question of guidance. I am sure they do not want to see public sector landlords being charged with using distraint indiscriminately or insensitively. My honourable friend will continue to look at other methods of rent arrears recovery to see whether anything can be done to improve them so that less reliance need be placed on distraint. For example, the Lord Chancellor's office is considering recommendations made under the Rayner project for speeding up the attachment of earnings procedure.
There is considerable strength of concern about the value of distraint and, more

151
irritable and short-tempered and wants to get to bed. I am trying my best to be helpful, and I wonder whether the Minister might be able to help me.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am always terrified at this time of night of expressing too much of what one has been told, but when this provision was discussed at Committee we discovered for our own satisfaction how many tenants might be at risk from this amendment, which I think is what the noble Lord is wanting to know. I gather it is not possible to give any reliable estimate. However, in only a small minority of cases—under 5 per cent.—does a family member succeed to a tenancy at present. Some of these will not qualify as succession under the Bill because the one succession will have already been used up. Not all will be seriously under-occupied and not all landlords will have a suitable alternative to offer. Only a very small number will be within the scope of the amendment and will be in the category of the most vulnerable. I hope that this may give the noble Lord the information he wants. I do not think it is a serious problem.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, there are quite a lot of us who are not irritated and not bad-tempered and are quite happy for this House to go on for a long time on this Bill. Although the Opposition have done very well, there are a lot sitting on this side of the House and in all parts of the House who are happy to go on a lot longer.
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, perhaps on this occasion the Government could show us that they are flexible and not inflexible. If this is going to apply only to a very few people, why must we have this written into the Bill at all? Why not leave it to the good commonsense and management experience of the local authority and other people? Why do we have to have it? I suggest to the Government that here they can prove some of us wrong and show they are flexible. It is not only this point; it is the philosophy behind this particular measure that worries me profoundly because here are the Government pressing for the right to
152
buy—which, as I said earlier, I support. If you buy your house, you can be one person in it, you can under-occupy it, you are a good citizen, nobody quarrels with you, nobody wants you to move or go away even though you have four bedrooms and you are only using one or more. But if you are renting accommodation, that is another business and we will not have you renting accommodation and being under-occupied unless you are a widow or one of those who are exempted. It is the basic philosophy of this which is distressing—two nations, two sets of people, two sets of values. I suggest that it is not good enough. Will not the Government withdraw it?
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I venture to suggest that the noble Baroness is making heavy weather over this. This ground for possession is something entirely permissive. Local authorities can act on it or not as they see fit. They can exercise their housing management discretion. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, was helpful; and, for once, I think the Government are right and that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was right to be so helpful.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with leave, may I say that I welcome my noble friend Lord Hylton back into the fold of the Conservative Party in realising that we are a Christian, philosophical party wishing to do good. I think that if the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, thinks about it she will find we are not as hard as she imagines.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, with consent, and in view of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, suggesting that the grounds will be humanely interpreted; and in spite of the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to go on forever. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 35, line 17, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may by order place a duty on groups of local authorities to participate in any arrangements facilitating moves of the kind outlined in subsection (1) above that have been agreed to the appropriate local authority association or local authority associations.
(4) The Secretary of State may only exercise the power provided by subsection (3) above following a request made by the local authority association or local authority associations concerned that he should exercise the power.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has to do with mobility. There was a great deal of support for mobility of labour from all sides at Committee stage: the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nichols, Lord Sandford, Lord Evans, Lord Hylton, the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, have all spoken in support. Today I have another supporter in the shape of the Prime Minister. No doubt noble Lords have read what she said which was quoted in The Times today:
"She insisted that changes of home and changes of job were fundamental to the survival of the country … Frequently, investment goes where there are skilled people wanting work. But there must be some mobility of labour. If people today are not willing to move as their fathers did, the economy cannot thrive ".
I hope that with this good start I shall have a friendly reception from the other side of the House. At the Committee stage I withdrew this same amendment partly because it was after midnight when I moved it, and partly because I wanted to read what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said to see whether I found it as unsatisfactory as I then thought it to be. I am afraid that I did.
He explained the start of the voluntary national mobility scheme announced in March by Mr. Stanley in another place. He said this voluntary scheme had been
approved by the AMA, LBA and the ADC. What he did not say was what would happen to the scheme if some of the local authorities decided not to operate it, as has happened in London with the inter-borough nomination scheme, where Barking, Hillingdon and Redbridge have refused to take part. This IBN scheme was drawn up in April 1978. This has had two years in which to be tried. None of the authorities in the scheme has made lettings on the agreed scale: as I said in Committee, about 1,300 a year instead of the target of 4,000; and those three
154
authorities that I have mentioned have not co-operated.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he wanted the national scheme to be given a chance. But if a similar scheme —a regional one—has been tried and found wanting in the London area, it is most unlikely that there will not be difficulties elsewhere. Some local authorities are bound to opt out. I understand so far that only three non-metropolitan counties and one conurbation have already drawn up proposals, so that does not look too good for a start.
There seems unanimity that mobility is devoutly to be wished for because of getting the right workers to the right place at the right time, and for social reasons, too. Here is our opportunity to make sure it happens. All this amendment seeks is to reinforce the effectiveness of the voluntary arrangements the Secretary of State is discussing and developing with the local authority associations. It asks for a statutory underpinning; a power which of course the Secretary of State would not need to use if all was going well, and he would not butt in unless asked to do so by a local authority association.
Considering the powers which the Government are handing to the Secretary of State in this Bill, this seems a very mild one indeed. We shall not know in the course of the next fortnight whether the scheme is being successful or not, and the Bill within that time will become an Act. So if we do not agree this amendment we shall have lost a very easy opportunity to make sure that we get what we all want. But I do hope in this case that the Minister can be helpful, because I think that it is an extremely simple and easy thing that we are asking. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am becoming confused and it certainly is not by the hour because, as my noble friend Lord Teviot (who is not in the House now) said, as far as I am concerned we are here for a long session yet. There are important matters which need the maximum discussion. I do not think it is particularly late anyhow—by some standards it is very early, really. Even so, I confess to some confusion. On the one hand we are being assailed very much from the opposite Benches for our rigidity,

159
would wish to detail some of the cases. However, the Minister has them, and they should make the case for legislation. One cannot provide full statistical material in this kind of time, but it is a problem which both sides recognise to be undesirable. I hope that the amendment can now be accepted.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has said, we as yet have no reason to believe that many local authorities in England and Wales now make it a condition that a spouse's rent arrears should first be repaid before a new tenancy is granted. This practice was understandably strongly criticised by the local ombudsman in two cases dating from 1976 and 1977. I referred also, as did my noble friend Lord Belstead, in our discussion of a similar amendment in Committee to the documents issued by the Department of the Environment—a circular on the housing of one-parent families, issued in 1977, and a report from the Housing Services Advisory Group, issued in 1978, which have explained why arrears should not be treated as a disqualification for housing in the circumstances of a family break-up.
The honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State shortly after our consideration of this matter in Committee, giving details of certain cases where he claimed the practice this amendment would stop had happened. I have also heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. The department will certainly look very carefully into the cases which he has submitted. I know he will understand that they arrived only today, and therefore we would hardly have had a chance to do with them that which I am sure he would wish and which I undertake we will do with them. The new clause would not, of course, bite in a number of circumstances. In accepting a joint tenancy, each of the parties has also accepted a responsibility for the obligations of the tenancy, such as paying rent; and in fact most authorities, even in these circumstances, do use their discretion in deciding how much is to be reclaimed from each of the parties. And, really, is a wife required to pay more than half?
I have before me quite a lengthy speech, if that is the right word, which sets out
160
the counter-arguments, but I suspect that the most helpful thing I can do in this matter is to undertake, as I will, that we will go very carefully into the cases the noble Lord has submitted and see what they really show. If it should prove to be the case that in time action is called for, then he has to accept from me that we will be concerned in a way that one hopes would be helpful. The noble Lord knows that I cannot go further than that now. We do not want to run away at all from this matter.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, the practice at which this amendment is aimed appears to be a quite indefensible one. I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said in reply. He mentioned a circular of 1977. Does this not show how, quite often, circulars do not get put into practice? Can the Government keep on drawing the attention of recalcitrant local authorities to the shortcomings of their ways?
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, the reply by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, shows a spirit which has been all too lacking so far from the Government Front Bench, but I wholeheartedly accept it on this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
10.33 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 35, line 36, at end insert—
("(3) A licence granted in pursuance of section 3(4), 4(3) or 5(6) of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 is not a secure tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I beg to move this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a clear distinction between, on the one hand, a tenancy granted by a local authority to a straightforward tenant, and, on the other hand, a licence granted to a person living in short-stay temporary accommodation who has been housed by a local authority

161
under the provisions of the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. A considerable problem has arisen in a number of local authority areas because persons housed in short-stay accommodation while awaiting rehousing in more permanent accommodation will become secure tenants under the provisions of this Bill after they have been in residence for one year—and surely that is contrary to the Government's intentions—unless a distinction is made between them and those who are allocated housing accommodation as tenants in the normal way.
An example of this problem occurs in the borough of Hillingdon, where a number of homeless families, who are also extended families with a large number of children, have been housed in temporary accommodation which comprises large houses compulsorily acquired by the previous council. It is very difficult for the council to rehouse these short-stay tenants in less than one year because very often there quite simply is no suitably large accommodation for them. Alternatively, it can take more than a year to settle them in permanent housing due to arbitration or to discussions with another local authority which it is thought may have responsibility for their welfare. Frequently, it is the case that the courts will not distinguish between a person who is a tenant and a person who occupies a home under licence, not, of course, because of any wilful wish to flout the intentions of Parliament but simply because they find the whole position rather unclear. Consequently, it seems to us to be vital to clarify the position by inserting this amendment into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has asked me whether I would speak to this amendment as I have had experience in this area. It is just a small amendment to clarify the difference between licensees and tenants. I know from my own experience that courts are not at all clear as to the difference between the two. If it is a tenancy it is often regarded as a secure tenancy and causes a great deal of trouble when people coming into an area as homeless under the Homeless Persons Act are given a secure tenancy and therefore keep other people off the waiting list. Of course they are entitled to great consideration
162
and thought, but it causes difficulty if the difference between licensee and tenant is not made clear.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, we believe that this amendment would be unfairly discriminatory against people who have come to a public sector landlord as homeless. Clause 48 of the Bill puts licences granted by public sector landlords on a par with tenancies granted by them, except where the licence has been granted to someone who originally entered as a trespasser—a squatter, in other words. We believe this is right in all other cases, including that of homeless people.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 already provides that a tenancy (and therefore also a licence) granted in pursuance of the sections of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act mentioned in the amendment shall not be secure until one year after the local authority has notified the tenant of its decision on the various matters to be decided. This period was extended in another place to one year from six months following requests from local authorities. Where a permanent liability for rehousing arises, this year gives sufficient time, I believe, for the landlord to make permanent rehousing arrangements. Once that period has elapsed, there really is no reason why the tenant should not have the same rights as any other tenant of his landlord. The fact that he was originally housed as a homeless person is no justification for leaving him without security and other rights. This is what the amendment potentially would do.
Where the decision of the authority is that there is no permanent rehousing liability, or that the tenant has a local connection elsewhere, it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that those concerned will still be in the same accommodation one year after its decision has been made. I do not think that these isolated cases justify a departure on a much wider front from the present rightly argued exclusion. Where the landlord continues voluntarily to house the family in question, the same arguments I advanced in relation to those to whom the authority does have a liability apply; there is no reason why security and the other rights in the Bill should not apply. My Lords, I fear we cannot accept this amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of why he does not feel able to accept the amendment. It was not my impression that the Government had intended to treat tenants broadly in the same way as licensees, but now that he has explained that such is the case, of course there is no answer to it. However, it does appear that certain boroughs—Hillingdon in particular—have difficulty even in meeting the extended period of one year which has recently been granted and therein I think the difficulty lies. However, as the Government have obviously made up their minds on this, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 52 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Right of tenant to terminate protected shorthold tenancy]:
10.40 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 38, line 26, leave out ("two years'') and insert ("thirteen months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will, with the leave of the House, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 52B, which is a manuscript amendment. To add to the confusion, Amendment No. 52A on the supplement to the Marshalled List appears to be in the name of someone who comes from a long way north of the Arctic Circle, but it is in fact myself.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if Amendment No. 52B is a manuscript amendment, I think the noble Lord should read it.
Lord MONSON: Indeed, I take the noble Lord's point. It is, in fact, exactly the same as Amendment No. 52A, except that it is "page 38, line 27". The words are precisely the same. It is simply a consequential amendment.
This amendment relates to shorthold tenancies, and when we were debating it I drew the Committee's attention to the fact that there appeared to be an anomaly whereby shorthold tenants who had tenancies of up to two years could give unilateral
164
notice to their landlords of a mere one month, whereas those with short-hold tenancies of between three and five years had to give at least three months' notice. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, explained that the purpose was to cater for students, and also I believe he implied that it was normal in tenancies of over two years to pay quarterly, although I must admit I can find no evidence of the latter.
So far as students go, of course students do not want to rent accommodation for two years at a stretch. What they really want is accommodation for eight or nine months, so under the provisions of the shorthold tenancies they will rent a flat or accommodation of some sort for one year and then give their landlords or landladies notice in the seventh or eighth month. I certainly do not object to that. That seems perfectly legitimate: in fact, it is about the only way that students can make use of this valuable shorthold provision. But there seems no justification with tenancies of between one and two years for the tenants being able to give their landlords a mere one month's notice.
I have said 13 months rather than 12 months because there is a possibility that the landlord might, whether by accident or design, agree a tenancy for a year and a day and a student or young person might thereby be caught out accidentally and find himself having to give three months' notice when thinking he only had to give one. Thirteen months would get round that completely and solve the problem. I do feel if the Government are serious about wanting to arrest the decline in the private rented sector they would do well to accept this amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, after that exciting display of calm and bravery on your Lordships' and your Ladyships' part—following that fall of debris—I think we can congratulate ourselves on our calm. No
bombs have exploded, no firearms have gone off. My only sadness is my noble friend the Chief Whip was about to wrap himself up in a blanket. He has got it out. I do not know what he is going to do with it.
This amendment, as the noble Lord said, follows up the amendments he

165
moved in Committee. The amount of notice that the tenant should be required to give the landlord if he wants to leave before the end of the shorthold is a matter of judgment. I regret to say that it seems that the Government's judgment differs on this matter from that of the noble Lord.
What the noble Lord's amendment is designed to achieve is that any shorthold tenant who has a shorthold term that is longer than 13 months—that is, anything significantly longer than the minimum period of one year, should have to give three months' notice if he wants to leave before the end of the fixed term. The Government have provided that the short-hold tenant should only be required to give three months' notice in these circumstances if the original fixed term was for more than two years.
I think that two years is a more logical point at which to change this requirement than thirteen months. It also seems to me that a tenancy that lasts for 13, 14, 15—or even eighteen months—is still a relatively short-term letting where the tenant may not know three months in advance exactly when he would be leaving. On the other hand, a letting where it is agreed at the outset that it should last for at least two years seems to me to be a longer-term letting, where longer notice is appropriate.
I hope noble Lords will agree with this, and accept that what the Government are proposing is about right. As we said in Committee, it seems to me that any landlord who is abroad would have an agent in this country who would be able to arrange for a new tenant in his absence. Requiring the tenant to give three months' notice in these circumstances would not seem to me to help the landlord much. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, and ask your Lordships not to accept it if my noble friend Lord Monson presses it.
Lord MONSON: The noble Lord says that it is a matter of judgment. I am afraid to say I think the Government's judgment is wrong. I wonder whether the Government have consulted with any organisations representing landlords or potential landlords; I do not think they can have done so. If they want to encourage the revival of the private rented
166
sector, I think they should try to tilt the balance a little more in favour of the landlord; it is tilted so heavily against him at the moment. It may not seem an important point, but it is symbolic of the Government's attitude, and I do not think it is going to give landlords any encouragement at all. If I were contemplating becoming a landlord for the first time, I would be extremely reluctant to let on that basis, if I have to give a two-year tenancy and the tenant could give one month's notice at any point and leave me high and dry. I think the Government are right to encourage short-term tenancies: I know how difficult it is for students and young people to find accommodation. This is one of the few pieces of legislation, if it goes through, which will actually add to the sum of human happiness; one cannot say that about a lot of legislation that goes through Parliament. I may be alone, but I feel I cannot withdraw this amendment. It is a matter of principle so far as I am concerned.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 52B and 53 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 42, line 26, leave out from ("where") to ("before") in line 28 and insert (",on the determination or confirmation of a rent by the rent officer, the rent determined by him is registered, or his confirmation is noted in the register,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment and of no substantive effect. The intention of the Bill is that the new two year minimum period between rent registrations will apply to all registrations after the relevant provision comes into force. The present drafting of Clause 60 is not as clear as it might be on this. This amendment seeks to remove any doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 42, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 36 and insert ("(3) In Schedule 6 to the 1976 Act and in Schedule 8 to the 1977 Act (phasing of increases in registered rents)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a paving amendment for a series of later amendments to Clause 61 concerning the "effective date" of rent

167
registrations (Nos. 57 and 59 to 67). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.50 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 55Z:
Page 42, line 35, at end insert—
"( )No rent shall be registered which increases the rent previously registered by a percentage in excess of the percentage increase in the Tax and Prices Index over the period since the last registration of rent.
( )In determining a fair rent in accordance with s. 70(2) of the Rent Act 1977 no account shall be taken of any evidence that the number of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to rent) of the regulated tenancy is greater than the number of tenants who are seeking dwelling-houses in the locality on such terms.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry that it is so late at night, because the amendment I have to move is one which affects a very large number of amendments of your Lordships' House, as well as the average citizen who has been living in premises for many years and who finds himself, in consequence of speculation by speculators, in a position where he cannot afford to pay the rents which are being assessed, in my view illegally, by land tribunals.
The position is an extremely serious one, particularly from the point of view of those whose incomes are not linked in any way with inflation or any other method of assessing how much increase there should be in relation to the expenses that individuals have to pay. It is a very shocking position and thousands of people in this country are being affected by it. Therefore, I make no excuse at all for raising it, even though it is at this late hour.
What has been happening? We are now facing a similar position as was faced at the time of the Industrial Revolution when an opportunity was taken of creating leaseholds which were intended to remain in the landlord's family after the tenants themselves had created a value, after they had built houses, after they had created a tremendous increase in value by paying the rates, by creating very fruitful districts, and at the end of the period having to hand over to the landlord finally the house including the whole of the advantages that had been obtained purely from the money
168
spent by the tenant. My Lords, that was the position that produced the Leasehold Reform Act.
We have precisely the same thing here. We have tenants who have lived in a house or flat for 40 years and instead of their salaries or pensions being linked with an inflationary position, they are no longer able to meet the demands which have been created by the speculators. Let me give you a simple illustration. I must declare an interest; at present unfortunately I have not got that particular interest. But let me say at once there are people in places such as around the Albert Hall. the Albert Hall Mansions, the Albert Hall Court, where they are literally being forced out of their places; people of 95 in many cases are being forced out of their residences which they have been occupying all that time, merely because landlords have speculated on the property. They have purchased these properties at a certain price, they are obtaining millions of pounds in increases because of the sales. The rent tribunals were supposed to have taken into consideration the question of scarcity value, the scarcity value having been created by the very people who are demanding the higher rents. That has been interpreted in a manner which I, for my life, cannot understand at all.
This is one of the most atrocious—and I use very strong words—situations that has been created, not only by residents of this country, but by people who have come from abroad, who have offices in other countries, who do not pay taxes and who purchase these places and later sell them at enormous profit. I am sure that none of your Lordships can imagine that such a state of affairs could possibly exist or continue to exist.
What will happen to the thousands of tenants—aged people who have lived in these places for 20, 30 or 40 years—who have to turn out of houses because the speculators have managed to create a market value which is enormously high and exorbitant? I know that quite a number of Members of your Lordships' House live in flats, and this particular aspect of private tenants' occupation is a matter of enormous importance. It is a pity that they are not present to speak this evening. Like myself, they have to move out of such places because it is impossible to pay the

169
rents that the rent tribunals are setting, rents which your Lordships must understand are created because the market value of the particular area has been increased by the speculators demanding very large profits. This cannot go on.
We are talking about a section of the community which must be protected. We have been talking about protecting the tenants under local authorities, but who will deal with a person whose rent has been assessed, in some cases, as much as 500 per cent. above what he was paying previously because of this speculative business?
This is not a simple matter. That is why it is very unfortunate that we do not have present, to speak for themselves, the people who are actually suffering this situation. I hope that when they read Hansard tomorrow they will realise that this is not a matter that can be neglected any longer. It is vital that some kind of restriction should be placed upon the rents that can be extorted from these tenants because of the profits that are being gained by those who buy today, and sell tomorrow at 100 per cent., and sometimes much more over their original price.
I have tried to put the matter in a form which I hope will be considered by the noble Lord the Minister. I am sure that the Minister knows that people, especially those living in fiats, are absolutely at their wits end to know what to do. They do not know what to do because they cannot find homes. They do not have the means to find homes, and I say that from personal experience. I have had to leave my home after about 30 years. I could not possibly afford to pay a 300 per cent. increase in the rent which I had been paying.
It is obviously too late at night to go into the details of this, but I should like the noble Lord the Minister to let me know whether he is prepared to consider these two points, which are preliminary points in regard to this matter, and whether he will take steps between now and the Third Reading to improve that position. Let him go to any residents' association, particularly in London, and ask them what their position is. He will find that what I have been saying is by no means an exaggeration; on the contrary, it is putting the position in a very minor form.
Probably some noble Lords have not had an opportunity of reading the amendment. It says that:
"()No rent shall be registered which increases the rent previously registered by a percentage in excess of the percentage increase in the Tax and Prices Index over the period since the last registration of rent".
Surely that is reasonable and would prevent people entering into speculatory buyings. The second part says:
"( )In determining a fair rent in accordance with Section 70(2) of the Rent Act 1977, no account shall be taken of any evidence that the number of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to rent) of the regulated tenancy is greater than the number of tenants who are seeking dwelling-houses in the locality on such terms".
I hope that noble Lords will take it seriously to heart, will speak to their tenant's associations and find out what it is all about. If on Third Reading some move has not been made by the Government to the satisfaction of those who are imperilled in their lives and homes by the situation as it stands at present, I hope that they will join me in passing appropriate amendments which will meet the position. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, apart from hearsay, I have very little knowledge of the large, impersonal, mainly foreign landlords described by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. From what I have heard I have little doubt that they are every bit as bad as the noble Lord claims they are. I can speak only as a small landlord. I can assure the noble Lord that on the first part of his amendment, every small landlord would be absolutely delighted if rents were to go up in line with the cost of living index. I would happily support him in his plea that rents should go up—
Lord JANNER: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me for a moment, I should have mentioned—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we are on Report. Unless noble Lords—
Lord JANNER: My Lords, with leave.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I would gladly support the noble Lord in any plea that rents should increase no higher than the cost of living index, provided that he in turn would support an amendment of

171
mine at Third Reading to ensure that they went up no less than the cost of living index, with annual adjustments; then we should all be happy.
11.5 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with respect, this manuscript amendment was put down in the dinner break. How can one possibly be expected to consider this properly? Having said that, I would have to say that in fairness to the noble Lord all the points that he has raised were not new. He is not presenting something to us that we have not heard before. I do not know how many times I have tried to answer this at this Dispatch Box. I asked my noble friends who were answering the noble Lord before I arrived, because I am sure that the same questions were being asked. I say that in no disrespectful way; the noble Lord knows that I would not do that.
I fear that I cannot accept the amendment. First, to have what amounts to a review of the whole basis of the establishment of this section of the Rent Acts is something I cannot undertake to do as part of dealing with this Bill. I know that some of the problems that the noble Lord mentions have validity. Clearly they have. Conversely, I also know that when we talk about increases in rents as percentages, you need to know the base from which you start, because in many cases you start very low and 100 per cent. is still very little. I do not want to make a meal of it. I only want to say that at this time I cannot be as helpful as the noble Lord would like me to be. I cannot give him the undertakings he wants. There are so many involvements and complications. When we start talking of scarcity, and so on, it is a whole review of the Rent Acts. I am sorry to have to say that there is no way I can satisfy the noble Lord on this.
Lord JANNER: I need hardly say that I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. At the same time, he must realise that it was not just rushed on the House. As he said himself, he knows exactly what I have been driving at for a long time. In the circumstances, while I am going to ask noble Lords to allow me to withdraw this amendment, as I feel at present this matter must nevertheless be
172
raised at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.7 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 43, leave out lines 13 to 17.
The noble Lord said: This amendment would have the effect of deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 60(6). We discussed this briefly at Committee on an amendment which was to some extent similar and which was withdrawn. Since then I have had a look at it, and it becomes increasingly clear that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which the periods mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) could effectively be reduced. It just would not work in practical terms. They could only be increased.
Therefore, leaving these paragraphs in is going to give the green light to a future Government of the extreme Left as soon as it gets into power to increase the phasing period and the period between rent registrations by order before there is any question of waiting for a Housing Bill. In other words, leaving these paragraphs in the Bill has absolutely no use so far as the Conservative Party or anybody remotely in favour of free enterprise is concerned; it can only be of use to people who have a totally different political philosophy. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this amendment would delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 60(6). These paragraphs empower the Secretary of State to make an order reducing or increasing the two-year phasing and registration periods introduced by Clause 60. The two-year period is appropriate for the present situation but it will not necessarily remain so in future. These subsections therefore provide a valuable element of flexibility—and I emphasise that word—which allows the Secretary of State to adapt the rent registration system to future situations more easily. This amendment would remove such flexibility—again I emphasise that word—and would leave the new system with no defence against changing

173
circumstances. This would, I believe, be more unwise in the light of the fact that the registration procedures have so clearly failed to reflect the changes of circumstances which we have experienced since first introduced in 1965.
The noble Lord is perhaps concerned that the powers might be used by a future Government to increase rather than reduce the new two-year period between registrations. I do not share his pessimism on this matter. And I think that if we are to introduce greater flexibility for the future—as we must—it would be wrong for the power to be capable of being used in only one direction. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will think about the matter again and will not press the amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I have thought extremely clearly about this issue. Surely the Minister is not suggesting there will be enough rent officers to go round and review rents every year? It would be a wonderful thing if it happened and it would create much better relations between landlords and tenants, because people adjust much more easily to annual increases. It will be difficult enough for rent officers to cope with the 50 per cent. increase in their workload, with the registration period reduced from three to two years, let alone to treble their workload by reducing it to one year, and I do not see how that could happen.
As for phasing, does the noble Lord seriously suggest that the phasing period could be reduced below two years? Are we to have six months at one rent and then another six months at a higher one? I cannot see that happening in practice. I suggest the Government have not thought this out thoroughly. By leaving in paragraph (c) the Secretary of State still has power to abolish phasing altogether, as has been done in the equivalent Scottish Bill, and I should have thought that it was quite adequate for the Government. I believe that, if the Government put their mind to the matter before Third Reading, they might find themselves coming to agree with me; and, with that hope and prediction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.12 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 55B:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
("Schedule 12 to the 1977 Act is amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 2(1) for the words "fourteen days" there are substituted the words "seven days";

(b)in paragraph 2(2)(a) and in paragraph 2(2)(b) for the words "fourteen days" there are substituted the words "seven days";

(c) in paragraph 5 for the words "fourteen days" there are substituted the words "seven days"; and

(d) in paragraph 6(1)(a) and paragraph 6(1)(b) for the words "fourteen days" there are substituted the words "seven days".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have written a number of safeguards into the Bill for occupiers under protected shorthold tenancies. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in Committee, what more safeguards could one practically give without destroying the scheme before it starts? The Committee was then about to approve the additional safeguard now in Clause 52(1)(c) and this provides that fair rents will apply from the start of the tenancy by obliging an owner, where there is no existing registered rent of a dwelling-house, to get, before letting, a certificate of fair rent under Section 69 of the Rent Act 1977. He can then not charge a rent in excess of the rent officer's figure. After letting, the owner must apply within 28 days for the rent to be registered.
I am sure the procedure now laid down in the Bill will not destroy the scheme, but we are approaching the point when an owner would hestitate to embark on offering a shorthold tenancy, because he might think the procedure was too cumbersome or because he might think that he would have to wait a long time to get a fair rent certificate; and certainly there might well be delay at the outset of a scheme like this, which must entail now an additional responsibility for rent officers. When my noble friend introduced the amendment that is now Clause 52 in Committee, he referred to the registration of a fair rent after the start of the tenancy and he then spoke of the possibility of no fair rent being registered for perhaps three months; so your Lordships

175
may wonder what kind of delay there might be in getting a certificate before a house can be let and how such delay can be minimised.
I fully support the desire of the Government to get shorthold tenancies off to a fair start. I have referred often enough in this House to the logjam that exists in the private rented sector. I know my noble friend is aware of the difficulties and delays that might arise and which might possibly deter owners from taking advantage of these provisions. I had hoped therefore that the Government might have tabled an appropriate amendment for this stage of the Bill, but it seems they have not been able to do so. Therefore, I tabled this amendment in the hope that it might provide an acceptable way of doing something to speed things up.
The fair rent procedure referred to in the Bill is set out in Section 69 of the Rent Act 1977, and Schedule 12 to that Act, which my amendment seeks to amend, is latched on to that section. Section 12 says how an application for a fair rent certificate has to be made, on the prescribed form and so on. It also sets out a timescale for a series of actions an owner can take where he is not satisfied with what the rent officer is doing. Each step in this series of actions has a 14-day time limit. It is a slight oversimplification in a rather complicated schedule. I am sure my noble friend will agree that this is substantially what Schedule 12 does. What my amendment does is to substitute, for 14 days for this procedure, seven days. It may do a little to speed up the process. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, we are anxious, as is my noble friend, that this important safeguard, the certificate of fair rent for shorthold tenants, should not impose undue procedural constraints on the landlord or cause any delay in getting property lets. Shorthold apart, there is a strong case for improving the certificate of fair rent procedures in Schedule 12 to the Rent Act, in the same way as registration of fair rent procedures in Schedule 11 to that Act have already been improved by amendments in another place. We have been discussing with the Institute of Rent Officers what can be done to streamline the certificate of fair
176
rent procedures and have agreed with them a number of improvements. The rent officer will be given more flexibility in dealing with applications and in particular cases would not automatically be referred to the rent assessment committee simply because the landlord did not provide enough information in his application.
Unfortunately, except for very minor amendments to Schedule 25 to the Bill, it has not been possible to bring these changes before your Lordships' House in time for Report stage. I can, however, assure my noble friend that if it does not prove possible to do so during the remaining stages of the Bill—and that seems unlikely—we shall propose the necessary amendments by statutory instrument as soon as possible after Parliament returns from the summer recess. The Secretary of State already has powers under Section 74 of the Rent Act to make procedural changes of this kind. The regulations would be subject to Affirmative Resolution. Of course there is nothing to stop anyone applying for a certificate well in advance if he has an empty dwelling and is planning to let on shorthold once the provisions are in force. In view of the assurance I have given, and the fact that we share my noble friend's concern to streamline the certificate of fair rent procedures, he might on reflection agree not to press his new clause.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I quite understand the pressure of time and, in view of the assurances my noble friend has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Effect of registration of rent, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 43, line 34, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 9 on page 44 and insert—
("The registration of a rent for a dwelling-house takes effect—

(a)if the rent is determined by the rent officer, from the date when it is registered, and

177

(b)if the rent is determined by a rent assessment committee, from the date when the committee make their decision.

(2) If the rent for the time being registered is confirmed, the confirmation takes effect—

(a)if it is made by the rent officer, from the date when it is noted in the register, and

(b) if it is made by a rent assessment committee, from the date when the committee make their decision.

(3) If (by virtue of section 67(4) of this Act) an application for registration of a rent is made before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 67(3) and the resulting registration of a rent for the dwelling-house, or confirmation of the rent for the time being registered, would, but for this subsection, take effect before the expiry of that period it shall take effect on the expiry of that period.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if, in speaking to Amendment No. 57 I inform your Lordships that I am also speaking to Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67, it might help to speed up the proceedings a little. Amendment No. 57 is concerned with the effective date of the rent registration. It is closely related to Amendments Nos. 59 to 67 and also to Clause 61, and it might be convenient if I speak to them all together. There will be later consequential amendments to Schedules 10, 24 and 25, which I shall mention very briefly when we reach them.
The main purpose of these amendments, which arise from further consideration of our proposals in Clause 61, is to simplify the effective date rules for rent registrations in cases which go to rent assessment committees on appeal. They provide that the date of the committee's decision will always be the "effective date". The new rent will be payable from then; the second phasing instalment will be payable a year later; and the rent cannot be reviewed until two years later. The amendments also ensure that proper transitional provision is made for the new rules and that they apply equally to housing association and Rent Agriculture Act registrations. I beg to move.
11.20 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 57A:
Line 3, after ("registered") insert ("or the date three months after the date of application for registration, whichever is the earlier").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems that once more we have the same
178
problem as previously of the Government not having consulted thoroughly the professional and other organisations representing those involved with property, as well as landlords generally. When Clause 61 was first introduced, it was claimed at Second Reading, and no doubt in another place, that it would help landlords; it would be an incentive to landlords to put their properties on the market and thereby fulfil the Government's intentions of making available more rented accommodation.
However, all the information that I have received from organisations representing property owners and landlords indicates that it will have precisely the opposite effect. The reason is that most registrations are not new registrations; they are re-registrations, and therefore by the nature of things they will nearly always be upwards. Clause 61, either as it stands, or as amended by the Government's amendment, No. 57, will effectively delay the date of re-registration.
With the leave of the House, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 57B, 59A and 59B, because they are more or less consequential. The effect of the amendments would be to reduce the maximum effective delay in re-registration to three months. That still leaves the landlord rather worse off than he would be for the most part if Clause 61 had been deleted altogether, but it would be better than might otherwise be the case, given that the workload upon rent officers is to be so great. It is quite possible that rent revisions rather than taking place at two-year intervals, will take place at intervals of 2½ years or even 2¾years. So we would be back almost to square one, to the three-year period.
This is a question of the very heavy workload upon rent officers who are already very busy. They are particularly busy in London and in certain other parts of the country, and they simply will not be able to revise the rents at two-year intervals, as the Government intend. These amendments which I propose would limit the delay to a maximum of three months. That is not ideal, but it is certainly better than leaving the clause as it stands, or as it would be amended

179
by the Government's amendment, No. 57. I beg to move.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, in speaking to these amendments may I also speak to Amendment No. 58, which stands in my name, and which I think would fall if Amendment No. 57 were accepted. What the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said in relation to the block of amendments does not meet a very fundamental point that was raised in Committee by me and some of my noble friends. In fact, the point comes rather close to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his proposed amendments. The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that there will be delays in the registration of a rent which could cause hardship to landlords if the rent were increased. Equally, there will be delays in the registration of a rent which could cause difficulties to tenants on a first registration, if the rent is reduced, particularly since the delays can sometimes stretch over many months when there is an application to the court.
We raised this matter in Committee. We were told that these points would be carefully taken into consideration; yet there had been no response, either in writing or in debate in the House. It seems that unless provision is made to deal with the cases where there are long delays in registration, Clause 61, as it stands and as it is sought to be amended, will be seriously defective and will cause to tenants on first registration hardship which can amount to hundreds of pounds when they are charged exorbitant rents, which later are reduced on registration, but which have to be paid over the months which elapse. I think we shall have to come back to this on Third Reading, but I hope that some indication can he given that the points made on Committee have been taken seriously into consideration, or that, if they have not been, then they will be.
11.25 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think that the purpose of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the Government's amendment is really basically the same. It is to provide that rent registrations will be effective retrospectively in those cases
180
where the rent officer takes more than three months in dealing with an application. I have sympathy, obviously, with the noble Lord in wanting to avoid delay for landlords—and, indeed, tenants—in getting a fair rent registered. But I would suggest to him that his amendments are possibly not the best way to set about it. They would reintroduce much of the complexity which, in Clause 61, we are now trying to remove.
This is because they would alter the date on which the registered rent is theoretically effective, but not the date on which it is actually payable. Section 45 of the Rent Act provides that rent increases cannot be recovered without a notice of increase, and the notice of increase cannot take effect before the date of registration. The noble Lord's amendments would not alter this situation. So, in a case where the rent officer took, say, four months to register a rent, the landlord would still have to wait until the end of the four months before getting his increase. The only difference in such a case would be that the two-year period before the rent could be reviewed would commence from a date three months after the application, rather than on the date of registration. Thus we would keep the existing Rent Act problem, which the Bill removes, of the review period starting on a date which is different from that on which the rent actually becomes payable.
It might be that the noble Lord's intention was different, and that in cases of delay he intended the date of payment as well as the beginning of the review period to be the date three months after the application was made; but that also would be unacceptable to the Government, as it would involve retrospective payment of increases in the registered rent. Clause 61 gets rid of retrospection for rent reductions, and we do not want to reintroduce it, whether for increases or reductions. Far better that the rent is always payable from the date of registration.
However, as I have indicated, the Government entirely accept the need to avoid delay in rent registration procedures. Our aim should be to avoid there ever arising the situation dealt with by the noble Lord's amendment; that is, a situation where an application takes more than three months to process. This is

181
what we wish to do. We do not want to have delays, and I am sure my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is going to do everything he can to ensure that the courts speed up these procedures.
The present situation is by no means all that bad. On average, registrations are made by the rent officer 11 weeks after the date of application. But there are, I have to admit, a minority of cases which take rather longer, and we should certainly like, want and are determined to see an improvement. A working party of rent officers and Department of the Environment officials have examined what might be done. They produced a report in April, on which the Government have consulted the Institute of Rent Officers. As a result, a number of changes to existing registration procedures were agreed which should make them speedier and more flexible, while safeguarding the interests of both landlord and tenant. Some of the changes—for example, on inspections—will be introduced administratively, but others require statutory change, and the Housing Bill was amended by the Government in another place to give effect to these. The amendments are now Clause 59 and Schedule 6 to the Bill.
These are important changes which I believe do much to meet the noble Lord's concern about delays. In the light of them, and of the explanation I have given about the effect of his amendments, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendments. I hope I have given the noble Lord satisfaction. Our intention is to give the landlord as fair a deal as he would wish.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that detailed explanation. Clause 61 is an extremely complex one. I did not draft the amendments myself. I took professional advice and even they could not get it right, so extremely complex is the whole business. In view of the fact that these amendments would not have the effect intended, it would be ridiculous to go ahead with them. I am pleased to hear of the steps taken to expedite the rent registration procedure: I maintain that it is particularly bad in certain parts of the country. Eleven weeks may be the average but there are areas waiting a good deal longer than 11 weeks. This is
182
where the injustice lies and these may be the areas where the need for more rented accommodation to come onto the market is greatest. Therefore it is all the more important to try to create incentives for landlords to let. With the assurances given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57B not moved.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, indicated, if Amendment No. 57 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 58.
On Question, Amendment No. 57 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 44, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A)For subsections (4) to (6) of section 13 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (effect of registration of rent) there are substituted the following subsections—
"(4) The registration of a rent in the said part of the register takes effect—

(a) if the rent is determined by the rent officer, from the date when it is registered, and

(b) if the rent is determined by a rent assessment committee, from the date when the committee make their decision.

(5) If the rent for the time being registered in the said part of the register is confirmed, the confirmation takes effect—

(a) if it is made by the rent officer, from the date when it is noted in the register and

(b) if it is made by a rent assessment committee, from the date when the committee make their decision.

(6) If (by virtue of section 67(4) of the Rent Act 1977, as applied by subsection (2) above) an application for registration of a rent is made before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 67(3) and the resulting registration of a rent for the dwelling-house, or confirmation of the rent for the time being registered, would, but for this subsection, take effect before the expiry of that period it shall take effect on the expiry of that period.
(6A)The date from which the registration or confirmation of a rent takes effect shall be entered in the said part of the register.
(6B)As from the date on which the registration of a rent takes effect any previous registration of a rent for the dwelling-house ceases to have effect."

183
(1B) In Part VI of the 1977 Act (rent limit for dwellings let by housing associations, housing trusts and the Housing Corporation)

(a)in section 87 (registration of rent), in subsection (2)(a) for the words "and 70" there are substituted the words "70 and 72" and subsections (3) to (5) are hereby repealed; and

(b)subsections (1) and (2) of section 96 (effect of determination by rent assessment committee) are hereby repealed." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 59A (an amendment to Amendment No. 59) not moved.]
[Amendment No. 59B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 59 agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 67:
Page 44, line 38, leave out ("by the rent office")
Page 44, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 45.
Page 45, line 3, after ("In") insert ("Schedule 6 to the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and in")
Page 45, line 6, leave out from ("from") to end of line 7 and insert (""means" to the end there are substituted the words "means—

(a) if the registered rent has been confirmed by a rent assessment committee, a period beginning with the date from which the registration of the rent took effect and ending one year after the date on which the committee took their decision; and

(b) in any other case, a period of one year beginning with the date from which the registration took effect." ")

Page 45, line 12, leave out from ("(iii)") to "there") and insert ("before the definition of service element")
Page 45, line 14, leave out from ("date") to end of line 31 and insert("means in relation to a registered rent—

(a) if the rent was determined by the rent officer (and whether or not it was confirmed by a rent assessment committee), the date on which the rent was registered by the rent officer; and

(b) if the rent was determined by a rent assessment committee, the date on which the rent officer registered the rent determined by him or, as the case may be, noted in the register his confirmation of the rent for the time being registered;

(c)for paragraph 4 there is substituted the following paragraph—

"4. Where the registration of a rent takes effect in a period of delay which began by reference to an earlier registration, then—

184

(a)from the date on which the later registration takes effect the limitation under that period of delay shall cease to apply; and

(b)a fresh period of delay shall begin by reference to the later registration."; and

(d) paragraphs 7 (in Schedule 6) and 8 (in Schedule 8) are hereby repealed.")
Page 45, line 35, leave out from ("and") to ("was") in line 36 and insert ("of the date on which it").
Page 45, line 36, at end insert—
("(5A) Subsections (1) to (3) above do not apply in any case where, on the determination or confirmation of a rent by the rent officer, the rent determined by him is registered, or his confirmation is noted in the register, before the commencement of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 60 to 67, with Amendment No. 57. With the leave of the House, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, the Question is that Amendments Nos. 60 to 67 be moved en bloc. There is a minor alteration in Amendment No. 60: "by the rent office" should read, "by the rent officer".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it was agreed that this might be a convenient moment for the House to adjourn. If that is the case generally felt, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.