Lords Sitting of 30 July 1980

Preamble
(Sitting in the Royal Gallery)
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Truro):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD BOARDMAN
Thomas Gray Boardman, Esquire, MC, TD, having been created Baron Boardman, of Welford in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Drumalbyn and the Lord Carr of Hadley.

HMS "ARK ROYAL"
2.42 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what is the future for HMS "Ark Royal".
Viscount LONG: My Lords, following the invitation of tenders to purchase "Ark Royal" for scrapping, the Admiralty Board has accepted a bid from Kitson Vickers Limited of Blyth, Northumberland, and a contract has been awarded to the firm, as announced by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State, Royal Navy, in another place on 18th July.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not consider it unfortunate that the demise of HMS "Ark Royal" should have been announced on a Friday in a Written Answer in another place? May I offer a tribute to the Royal Navy, the 230 officers, 2,380 ratings and airmen who have served on her over many years; and also pay tribute to the thousands of workmen in the Devonport Dockyard who refitted
866
her over the years, particularly the last refit in 1967 under very difficult conditions when the ship was commissioned on time by Her Majesty the Queen Mother? Can the noble Lord also say why there was no acceptance of the offer by the committee dealing with the "Ark Royal" to turn it into a museum?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I do not think I can answer the noble Baroness's first question on the procedure of another place when the question of the "Ark Royal" was dealt with in a written reply. I should like to join my noble friend and other noble Lords in paying tribute to this great and gallant ship, the "Ark Royal", for her marvellous and gallant services in the defence of our country. I would also like to join my noble friend in paying tribute to the officers and men, those who built her and designed her, and those who served on board her over the years.
If I heard my noble friend aright, she was asking about the committee that was set up. There was a series of inquiries from different trusts; these were narrowed down to one trust, which was the "Ark Royal" Trust, formed to preserve her. At this moment of time the "Ark Royal" is in such bad condition that it has been realised that she must, unfortunately, go to the scrapyard at the end of August.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the City of Leeds adopted the "Ark Royal" as their particular ship and had great association with the men and the officers who served on her? I am sure the citizens will feel sad at the rather ignominious end of this great warship.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Of course, in the trust there were a great many naval people. It is a very sad day, knowing that such a great ship has had to go.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who served in capital ships during the war very much regret that it was not possible to preserve a battleship? Can further consideration be given to the preserving of this splendid ship as one of the great symbols of our national heritage?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, in answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in 1978, when the ship had to have her equipment taken out, there were inquiries made by the Board of Admiralty to see if anybody was interested. Unfortunately, the ship is now in a very dangerous state; she will not last another winter where she is, and therefore must be towed away as soon as possible.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the Admiralty Board had waited a few more days they might have received a substantially larger offer for the ship from the committee anxious to preserve her as the last capital ship in the Royal Navy? That would have been beneficial to both the national finances and the national heritage. In those circumstances can the noble Lord tell the House what induced the Board of Admiralty not to wait a few more days?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I understand that this was suggested, but I do not think it was a necessary condition to enable the trust to raise the required funds.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to join in the tribute to this wonderful vessel and to those who have served in her? I can understand the sentiment that it should be maintained as part of a tradition, but would it not be far better to send the ship to a ship-breaking yard where the break-up can provide employment for nearly two years, thereby making a very valuable contribution to the industrial position of the country?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, the "Ark Royal" will sail about the middle of August to the scrapyard for exactly that purpose, which is sad, though of course it will give people employment in dismantling her.

THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: STONEWORK
2.50 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: 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 on what date the cleaning programme for the stonework of the Palace of Westminster will begin.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the report of the recent survey of the stonework. He has agreed that urgent repair work should go ahead. The timing of a major stone cleaning and repair programme will depend on when funds can be made available.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that I am concerned not only about the appearance of the Palace, important though that is, but as I understand it the stonework, which is very soft stone, is now deteriorating rapidly? Moreover, while in 1973 the cost of repair was estimated to be some £2 million, the latest report, to which the noble Lord referred, estimates a cost of £6 million. Is it not the case that we cannot possibly wait for further deterioration to this magnificent building?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I can accept the figures which the noble Lord has put forward. It certainly was £2 million, but as regards the 1980 figure it may not be quite as much as £6 million. However, it does include full cleaning and repair of the stonework. This year we shall start on the stonework which is dangerous, and we shall do the same next year. It will involve £70,000 this year and £75,000 next year. We are also doing a survey of certain areas which are suspected of being dangerous as well. We would all like to see the building clean, but we must do the essential work first.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that while, for example, the Abbey, has been made to look very lovely, and many of the buildings around Whitehall which have been cleaned are also looking very fine, this building is of particular importance, not only in Britain, but throughout the world? He knows that much of the surface of the stone is now crumbling

869
rapidly. It is a very false economy, is it not, if we are to allow that deterioration to go ahead at an accelerating pace, while, in fact, the other buildings which are not quite of the eminence of this one, are being cleaned daily? Somebody is bearing the costs.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Lord says about the importance of this historic and most important building; he is pushing an open door in that respect. We are saying that at the moment, just cleaning for cleaning's sake to please the eye—although we would like to do it—is not financially "on". We want to get the structural stonework which is dangerous made secure and safe.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, I should like to ask whether a stitch in time does not save nine? Ought not this work to be hurried on as fast as possible during this time when employment is so slack, before the boom which we hope is to follow?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, in times of financial constraint everyone has his favourite things that he would like to see done. The Government must look at the broad spectrum of the country's economic situation. It is in the light of that—although we want to do everything—that we are not galloping ahead at the moment.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord's Answer mean that the cleaning of the Palace of Westminster is now to be postponed, apparently indefinitely? This is the greatest of our national institutions in a great many respects. It is a place which people come to in order to admire and to see. The noble Lord's Answer is alarmingly casual in view of the needs of the situation.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I understand that the noble and learned Lord's Government did precisely what we are doing now—they postponed it for reasons of cost. I do not think that we are doing anything particularly different from what noble Lords opposite did.

NATURAL GAS: PRICES TO INDUSTRY
2.55 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: 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 why British industry is being handicapped by having to pay substantially more for natural gas than its competitors in France, West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, reliable international comparisons of gas prices to industry are not easy to make. But on the basis of the most up to date information available to the Government I would not accept that British industry is in fact paying substantially more on average than its competitors in other EEC countries.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and I should like to put to him two supplementary questions. First, is he aware that a document published by the Chemical Industries Association this month indicated that the gas prices paid by United Kingdom industry as at 1st April 1980 were, on average, 50 per cent. greater than the gas prices paid by industries in those EEC countries which I have named in the Question? Secondly, would the Minister not agree that if the industries in other EEC countries are being supplied with cheaper gas for whatever reason, then this Government should have reduced the prices to our industry so that it is not handicapped and so that there is greater harmony in the Community?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I should like to take the noble Lord's supplementaries in reverse order. I think that he will find that if there is a discrepancy with our European Community competitors—and I am not convinced that there is—it will last very little longer, because gas prices tend to follow oil prices, as the uses of the two are largely interchangeable, and as oil prices throughout the world have been raised in the

871
last year or year and a half, so gas prices are inevitably following.
As regards the noble Lord's first supplementary, that matter is also connected. I am aware of the Chemical Industries Association figures, but because of the lag times between gas price rises and oil price rises it is rather hard to be precise. As I have said to the noble Lord, the evidence we have is that there is no significant differential.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that gigantic losses are being made at present by the fibres industry in this country due to the disparity in oil prices throughout the world? Is he aware that if that is allowed to continue for many more months, much of our fibres industry in this country will have to close down?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am aware—as we are all painfully aware—that increases in energy costs bear heavily on individual industries, on consumers and on whole economies. It is our duty and the duty of all the industrialised nations to adapt as fast and as efficiently as we can to dear energy. That is what we are trying to do.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that in the paper industry gas prices are already 15 per cent. of total costs? If the forecast in the Financial Times that a further 50 per cent. increase is due in the next 18 months is right, it will be totally ruinous to an industry already suffering great difficulties. Will he confirm that on the Third Reading of the Gas Bill he undertook to monitor the prices over the next 12 or 18 months? Will he be sure that he does that?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I shall certainly honour that obligation and I am glad that the noble Lord reminded me of it. But the fact remains—as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and previously to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—that the price of gas is very intimately related, though with some time lag, to the price of oil. We can no more protect industry, including the paper industry, from gas price rises in the long term, than we can from price rises in respect of oil.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, why is it that the time lag seems to make it cheaper for everybody else except the United Kingdom?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, I do not accept that. However, I may be able to give him an example. Let us say that the Dutch Government had negotiated gas contracts for a fixed price and for a term of years with the German Government. This is a hypothetical example. It would not be until that term of years had come to an end that the Dutch Government would be able, in respect of the German Government, to raise their tariffs. Both Germany and Britain do not operate on fixed tariffs: they operate in respect of industry on individually negotiated contracts, and that is another significant difference.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, in his reply the noble Earl appeared to cast doubt on the figures that were produced by my noble friend Lord Jacques. He referred to the evidence at his disposal. Will he therefore undertake that the evidence at his disposal, documented by source, will be published by him, so that we may know the facts? Will he give the House a further assurance that the Government's own policy of artificially fixing gas prices, as distinct from determining their cost, may receive some reconsideration?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I should be delighted to publish a Written Answer to any Question that the noble Lord wishes to put to me. As I said, one of our difficulties is that many gas contracts in this country as well as in Germany do not follow fixed rates—as the noble Lord appears to suggest—but are negotiated between the consumers and the suppliers. This, of course, is not a matter within the remit of the Government but is within the remit of the British Gas Corporation. However, I should be delighted to publish the figures that we have which show that there is no substantial difference between our own tariffs overall and those on the continental mainland.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the glasshouse sector of the horticultural industry has been complaining for years about the

873
unfair competition between Holland and ourselves? Is this not something which the Treaty of Rome was set up to rectify, and can my noble friend say whether any discussions are taking place within the EEC forum to correct this unhappy state of affairs?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, we are continually sensitive of and continually working to reduce any disparities in fair competition between us and our trading partners, whether they are in the European Community or outside it. As to the horticultural industry at large, regrettably we cannot insulate it from dear energy costs. It will have to make that adaptation itself.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, if the Minister is about to publish figures for the relative price of gas, could he similarly include those for electricity? The figures that I have recently seen suggest that the cost of electricity in this country is three times as great as it is in any large industrial city in America, with the sole exception of New York City itself. Furthermore, will he itemise the differential between the cost to domestic consumers and to commercial consumers? In most countries in Europe I believe that the price is in favour of industry; in this country it is in favour of the domestic consumer.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, if, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the noble Lord cares to put down a Question for Written Answer—and I would respectfully suggest that complex issues of tariffs are perhaps better published in the form of a Written Answer —I shall, of course, answer it. With regard to the United States of America —and this is my own view—it seems to me that America's failure at sufficient speed to adapt to dear energy costs is probably largely behind her inflation and her very withered currency.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fibres industry depends on oil as a basic raw material? If other countries have oil at prices below those available to us we are bound to lose out, and it will not be long before the fibres industry of this country is on its beams end.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not think it is true to say that our European competitors are gaining where we are not, and certainly our own energy position is considerably more favourable in terms of supply than is theirs. However, we are all having to adapt painfully to dearer energy costs.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, will the Minister then substitute "American" for "European"?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that the point which I would wish to make in respect of America I made in respect of the previous supplementary question asked by the noble Lord on the other side of the House.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is a fact that the British Gas Industry is making very large profits, probably of £500 million a year? If that be so, would it not be possible for the gas industry to reduce its prices both to industry and to the household consumer?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, ultimately the benefit of North Sea gas, as of North Sea oil, derives on this economy and this country as a whole. It is certainly true that in this aspect of our economy we are being very successful, and I hope that that continues.

BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS: WARSHIP SHIPYARDS
3.5 p.m.
Lord BIRDWOOD: 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 what are their intentions towards the warship shipyards.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as is well known, the Government are studying possible options for introducing private capital into British Shipbuilders. It is hoped to make a Statement before the Recess.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his prudent reply. Is he aware how much damage is being done to export prospects by the current uncertainty surrounding this industry?—and I refer in particular to the uncertainty surrounding British Shipbuilders as a commercial entity. I should also like to ask my noble friend whether any assurances were given to employee representatives of British Shipbuilders at the last pay settlement, that the group would be maintained intact.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be helpful to my noble friend or to any other noble Lord. There was to have been the release of a Statement today on the financial position of British Shipbuilders, but it has been delayed by the congestion of parliamentary business. However, a Statement in some form will be released to Parliament before the Recess and, as I said in my original Answer, we very much hope to be able to make a Statement on privatisation and related matters.
Yes, I understand that uncertainty is never a good thing, but a proper foundation for the future of British Shipbuilders is important, and we intend to reach that situation. At the moment I cannot recall the detail of the assurances given to employees in relation to British Shipbuilders. We have all been in some doubt as to whether their advised tonnage in their preferred plan of 430,000 tonnes would prove realistic. I therefore believe that no absolute statement or guarantee was given to them. Their voluntary redundancy programme is a little behind-hand, but is otherwise going according to plan.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the House again, but this is a subject in which I have taken a profound interest for many years. Is the noble Viscount aware that, although I recognise that at the last election the Government were given a mandate which enabled them to dispose of certain nationalised and perhaps profitable interests, to dispose of these three shipyards, which for many years have been primarily associated with building war vessels, will have an adverse effect on the National Shipbuilding Corporation? If the Government proceed with this disposal,
876
we may as well abandon the National Shipbuilding Corporation and make up our minds that British shipbuilding has come to a dead end.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I would not accept what the noble Lord has said. We do, of course, accept that in certain yards and in the warship area profits are being made. Should any move—and that decision has not been taken—be made towards privatisation of those profitable parts of British shipbuilding, account will, of course, be taken of that in relation to the plans and the targets for the very important remainder of British shipbuilding—and here we disagree with the noble Lord; we believe that a viable British shipbuilding industry is a possibility in those areas.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, as the noble Viscount is already on record as saying that mere changes of ownership have very little economic effect, will he ensure that when a Statement, which might conceivably provide for what he calls "privatisation", is made, the Statement will at the same time also contain particulars of the advantages that might conceivably accrue to both productivity and employment as a result of any change that might be thought necessary?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, we shall, as usual, give the reasons for any decisions we make when we release them.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind that, if they were to lay on further orders for warships, this would not only require the production of more steel and keep in existence steelyards which we shall certainly need if there is more international tension, but would also give more employment and strengthen an arm in which this country is at present dangerously weak?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the importance of the public sector orders to British shipbuilders is well understood and is given every consideration.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that his last answers are calculated to reassure would-be customers of British Shipbuilders?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think it well might reassure some. It depends upon your view of the past history of British Shipbuilders, and your confidence in this Administration to help British Shipbuilders improve their competitive position, which is what we are trying to do: many important factors have to be carefully weighed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE: BROADCASTING BILL
3.12 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Belstead will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on British nationality law at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time, 7 p.m.
I should also like to inform the House that the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill will not now be taken on Wednesday next, 6th August. The Committee and remaining stages will be taken when the House returns in October. As my noble friend Lord Belstead confirmed to your Lordships during the Second Reading of the Bill last week, the Government wish to introduce amendments to the Bill to provide for the establishment of a Welsh language television committee. The Government believe that these amendments should be discussed in your Lordships' House at Committee stage, but the precise details still require to be worked out and further consultation with broadcasting authorities is essential.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Statement. While we understand that, if the Government need time for consideration for amendments to the Broadcasting Bill, the first Committee day should be postponed, we should nevertheless like an assurance from the noble Lord that the Government will give full and proper time for consideration of the Broadcasting Bill during the autumn spill-over.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we shall certainly allow the Bill appropriate time when the House returns in October.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for informing the House of the Government's decision to postpone the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill, may I stress how vital it is that the proposed consultations should take place with as wide a range of Welsh interests as possible in view of the great importance of the Bill for the future of the beautiful and ancient Welsh language?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE: STANDING ORDER NO. 43
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Summer Recess.—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before we go into the Third Reading, I must raise with the House—
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would forgive me. I have a statement to make first on this subject.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Housing Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the

879
Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Housing Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for being so precipitate? I have just heard from the other place that at Question Time the Minister for Housing has said that the Government intend to reject the Lord's amendment excluding old people's dwellings from the right to buy. We have not yet had the Third Reading of the Bill in this House. The Bill has not yet been passed, and yet we have this behaviour on the part of the Government in another place which is an absolute insult to this House.
The amendment to which I am referring —noble Lords will, I am sure, remember well—was passed by a majority of 35 in this House on Report stage. The voting was 109 to 74. This included people from all sides of the House: from the Government Benches, the Cross-Benches, the Liberal Benches and the Opposition. It seems to me absolutely disgraceful that, before the Bill has even been through this House, this should have occured in another place.
We have spent hours and hours and hours on this Bill, and indeed I had intended to say at a later stage that I thought that this Bill had been improved in this House. But how are we, as a House, as one of the legislative Chambers of this country, to be able to proceed when we are treated in this way? I do not think that this is a party matter. I think this concerns the whole dignity of the House.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I wonder whether we are going to hear from the Government whether what the noble Baroness has said is to be confirmed? If
880
it is to be confirmed, many of us in all quarters of the House will regard this as a Parliamentary outrage of the first order.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is it in order for this House to castigate another place in such terms on pure hearsay? The noble Baroness said that she had heard. What was her source? Ought we not to subdue our prejudices until we see in print what has actually been said? Is the noble Baroness suggesting that in another place when the Minister is asked a question on a specific subject he must not give an answer because it may upset the prejudices that she has expressed in the way she has castigated the other place? I believe that a little bit of reticence, and finding out exactly what happened and why, would have been more becoming if we are part of a Parliament that can work as a two-Chamber system.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was not castigating another place. I was castigating the Government. My source is a Member of the Front Bench, the Shadow Minister for Housing for the Opposition, who sent me this note. We have already asked whether it is so. To say that we cannot castigate the Government for behaving in this way is, I would say with great respect, absolute nonsense. This Bill has not been through this House. It has not yet been finished in this House. If the Minister is asked a question, there is a form of words that is not unknown, which is, "It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage as the Bill has not yet proceeded through the other place".
3.20 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Birk because, speaking personally—nobody can challenge this and I am sorry to intrude with a personal note—when there has been debate and controversy in political circles and throughout the country, I have defended the existence of your Lordships' House. When the Housing Bill was going through its various stages I seldom intervened; I think it unwise to speak on subjects about which one knows nothing, although I must at the same time observe that often one can make an eloquent and pragmatic speech on a subject about

881
which one is completely ignorant. On this issue, however—I may be corrected in this observation—the Government in this House were defeated not only by the votes of noble Lords on this side but by the attitude of some Members on the Benches opposite.
I can understand those in another place seeking to offend this noble institution. They have been doing that for more than 100 years with no great success; whether they will be successful in the future is a matter of conjecture and high speculation. But when it comes to the other place ignoring not only the Opposition but Members of the Government party, then we are faced with a quite remarkable situation, and in those circumstances I suggest we do not now proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill. It would be not only inappropriate but, with such knowledge as I possess of the subject based on long experience, almost unconstitutional, and we must not embark on an adventure like that because that would be going a bit too far.
If on this occasion the Government take a pragmatic and objective view—I could add even a humanitarian view but it may be difficult for them to undertake a task of that kind, though I am ready to accord that sentiment to them—I suggest they should do what my noble friend suggested. As for the remarks of my erstwhile, now noble, friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I would not have expected him to say anything other than what he did say. He simply cannot help himself; he has to be on one side or the other, but usually on both, so I suggest we completely ignore his intervention.
I have an appeal to make to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and, after all, in doing that I am appealing to somebody who can speak and act with authority. In his absence, perhaps there is some other noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite who will heed this appeal.
Several noble Lords: He is present.
Lord SHINWELL: So he is, my Lords, and I see him edging himself along to the end of the Bench, for what reason I do not know. Why he should indulge in a geographical change of that kind I cannot imagine. Be that as it
882
may, I make an appeal to him as a person who is really objective; he always was objective and that was probably the reason why he was not in many Governments with less ability than he has himself, but I must not make too much heavy weather about that. I appeal to him to accept the suggestion, at any rate until tomorrow, that we should not proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill. Otherwise, what will be the position We shall make a laughing-stock of ourselves. The Government were defeated, and what a hullabaloo there was in the press about that! What a remarkable innovation that the Government should be defeated! Actually, I took no part in it; I conveniently absented myself, although that is by the way.
We now have an opportunity for your Lordships' House to assert itself. We can say to the other place, "It is all very well lambasting and criticising us, running us down and saying nasty things about us, and it is all right for some sections of the press and media to supplement those opinions of us, but we are an independent institution". Are we or are we not? We are, my Lords. But if we were to forsake our independence and throw it in the dustbin because certain people in another place, for some unearthly reason of which I do not have the faintest idea, decide to reject what we have decided, then that is going a bit too far.
Do not force some of us who have stood absolutely firmly, even theatrically and dramatically, by your Lordships' House to change our minds. It may not go well with you, my Lords, if some of us were to support those who want to abolish this House. It cannot be reformed. It could be abolished, and I am against the abolition of your Lordships' House. I want it continued, and although I may not be here for all that much longer, while I am here I want to enjoy being a Member of this House and be proud of the fact, as I am sure all noble Lords are equally proud. If so, show your pride today and tell the other place to go and jump in the lake.
I had better conclude, but I have one further comment to make.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I suggest—
Lord SHINWELL: Just a last word, my Lords?
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PEART: I urge my noble friend—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my final comment is this: do not talk about the abolition of your Lordships' House. Talk about the abolition of the other place.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I interrupt my noble and dear friend Lord Shinwell simply to say that I should like the Lord President to make a statement about this matter. Lord Shinwell made an important point and he knows that I always respect his judgment very much. Nevertheless, I should like to know what the Government are doing and intend to do. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for whom I have great respect, to make a statement now so that we may see where we are going.
3.28 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I do not think any of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—I am sure it is the last thing he would want to do—would wish to push anything too far, as he mentioned in his intervention. I really do not know what happened in another place. There was no intention of making any announcement, so if there was any discourtesy it was certainly an unintentional discourtesy. Those of us who know the rules of order of another place will appreciate that at 3.15 it is Question Time. There was certainly no original Answer to any Question which was intended to give such a reply. What exactly was said in the reply which I imagine was passed to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I am afraid I do not know. I do not know what was said, but it would have been said in answer to a supplementary. I am sure no discourtesy was intended to this House and I am also sure that no statement has been made on what the Government intend to do in another place, which presumably they will decide when the moment comes. I would suggest that this is not in any way a wilful indiscretion or incivility from one House to another. If it is, I am sure the Government would share my regret.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, since there is some confusion about what was actually said, and since our information is that the Government said that they intended to reject the Lords' amendment, can I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip whether we should not suspend the sitting of the House for a quarter of an hour until we have heard what the Government said? lf, indeed, they did say what it is reported they said, it surely calls into question how and in what form we debate the Third Reading of a Bill which has not been through this House but a bit of which has been prematurely rejected in the other place.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that my honourable friend in another place, in answering Questions, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, answered a supplementary question about the Government's intentions with regard to certain provisions in the Housing Bill. I understand—and it is quite impossible to know what, in fact, he did say until we have seen the Official Report tommorrow—that he indicated in some way that he was not, whether at that moment, or how, I will not know until I have seen it, prepared to agree on the first four amendments but was prepared to accept the fifth. How this was put, and whether it was put in a manner that was discourteous to this House, I do not know. I am sure that if any discourtesy could be taken to have occurred, it would be regretted by everybody.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, then I think we really must ask for a suspension until we find out what was said. The noble Lord clearly does not know what was said. We shall soon know, after the end of Questions, and if necessary I think we must ask the House to decide.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, a mis-statement has been made. The Government are not in a position to turn down the amendments that your Lordships' House put in the Bill. The Government cannot do that. Parliament can do it. Are the noble Lords opposite suggesting that the Members of the

885
elected Parliament, who constitute another place, are not in a position, in the time that we give to them, to make their own decisions in their own way? Would it not be wiser to wait until we see what has been said before we take precipitate action such as is being suggested?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I wonder whether I could help to clear this up? Of course, it would be a matter for regret if any slip of the tongue appeared to be a matter of discourtesy, but certainly we are talking about no more than that.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord SOAMES: Had this not arisen, the Bill would have gone from this House to another place, and at the proper time the Government would have announced their intentions, of which this House is not yet aware. They would have announced them when it got to another place. It is my belief—I cannot be sure because I was not there; but I do not think that is necessary—that nothing has been said which could be construed as being more than a discourtesy, and certainly nothing which would warrant the postponement of this Bill being given a Third Reading in this House.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if it is only a discourtesy, then we accept it; but I think the whole House wishes to know what actually happened. This is why, with, I think, the support of most parts of the House, I should like to move a temporary suspension during pleasure while we find out what was actually said. After that, we can find out where we go from there. So I think at this point—
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): Does the noble Baroness beg to move?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do beg to move, and was about to beg to move, that we divide on the Question, Whether the House should be suspended during pleasure until we have heard what happened in another place.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I take it that the noble Baroness has moved that the sitting of the House be suspended during pleasure? The Question is that the sitting of the House be suspended during pleasure.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No; I have not put the Question yet. The Question is that the sitting of the House be suspended during pleasure.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, on this new Motion I really do think that we must make a protest, because it is not just a matter of discourtesy. It is a question of knowing what the intentions of the Government are going to be. So far as the Third Reading of this Bill in this House is concerned, we ought to be aware of what their intentions are in another place. I think it is very important that we should divide the House on this Motion to suspend the sitting of the House during pleasure.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I hope the House will not make itself look ridiculous by reacting in that way to what is still hearsay evidence. We have got on our Order Paper today a bidding to be here to give a Third Reading to this Bill. What we do on the Third Reading can have no effect on the powers that another place has got when the Bill goes there. But I believe that to react in this way to what, as I say, is a third-hand account of what is supposed to have been said, undermines the dignity and the standing of this House. I believe that we ought to ignore such things and get on with our business. There is nothing that we can do today which can interfere with another place using their powers when the Bill eventually goes back to them. If I may be allowed to say so—I know it may not be happily accepted on the other side of this House—I believe that this is something of a manoeuvre. I believe that—
Several noble Lords: Withdraw!
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Several noble Lords: Give way!
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I am not giving way.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I am not giving way.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw now.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: No, my Lords. I am not giving way.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I certainly shall not withdraw.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: As the Leader of the House stood up, I sat down, but I shall not sit down now.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: There is no one who has any power to make me withdraw something that I believe is a fact.
Several noble Lords: Withdraw!
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I call on the Leader to ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I did not give way to the noble Baroness. I believe that making a mountain out of this molehill is part of a manoeuvre, and I believe that we ought to resist it.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
A noble Lord: Shame!
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I believe it interferes with the dignity of this House, and I would ask noble Lords to vote against the Motion that has been put to us and to retain our independence in that way.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to say that it looks as if the wish of the House is that it should divide on this matter. I should just like to point out that there is, in effect, no way by which we can discover the exact words used in another place until tomorrow, until we see the Official Report.
A noble Lord: What about the recording?
Lord SOAMES: There is no other way in which we could find it out. This Motion has been put to the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In reply to the noble Baroness, I would say that we are absolutely convinced that we know enough about it to know that no statement has been made which could affect this House in any way, except in so far as it might have been a discourtesy. And I have already told noble Lords that if it be a discourtesy the Government will, of course, regret it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, just before we vote, I really must make a protest about what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said about this being a manoeuvre. I think that is quite disgraceful. What happened was exactly as we said. In fact, there was not even time for me to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, as I would have done out of courtesy. I had a note saying that John Stanley had said at Question Time that the Government intended to reject the Lords' amendment excluding old people's dwellings from the right to buy. It was on that that I proceeded. I take very great exception to the noble Lord saying that it was a manoeuvre. I was absolutely prepared to come along with the Third Reading. I ask the noble Lord to have the courtesy and decency to withdraw, but if he is not to withdraw, I should rather not be subjected to another speech.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question is that the House do adjourn during pleasure. That is the correct Question.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House do adjourn during pleasure.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 107.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Foot, L.

Pargiter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Parry, L.

Amulree, L.

Galpern, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Baker, L.

Gosford, E.

Pritchard, L.

Balogh, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Banks, L.

Gregson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Beswick, L.

Grey, E.

Reilly, L.

Birk, B.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Rochester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bourne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Bowden, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hayter, L.

Shackleton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brock, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Spens, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Clancarty, E.

Leonard, L.

Strauss, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

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

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Coggan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Wall, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

David, B.

Melchett, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milford, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Milverton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Monson, L.

White, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Oram, L.

Zuckerman, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Paget of Norghampton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Dudley, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Allerton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avon, E.

Eccles, V.

Ilchester, E.

Balerno, L.

Effingham, E.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Ironside, L.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kemsley, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elton, L.

Killearn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Kilmany, L.

Belstead, L.

Faithful, B.

Kimberley, E.

Berkeley, B.

Falkland, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bessborough, E.

Forbes, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bethell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Kinross, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gage, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Geddes, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Godber of Willington, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gowrie, E.

Luke, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gray, L.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gridley, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Haig, E.

McFadzean, L.

Daventry, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.(Chancellor.)

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

De Freyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Derwent, L.

Hertford, M.

Mansfield, E.

Digby, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Margadale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Marley, L.

890

891

Middleton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Mills, V.

St. Davids, V.

Strathspey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trenchard, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Seafield, E.

Vaizey, L.

Northchurch, B.

Selkirk, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Porritt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
3.52 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Unfortunately, my Lords, the Motion did not contain a time at which the House should resume. Therefore, I hope I may do right if I select a time to return to the Woolsack. If I do it too soon, a further Motion, with a time limit, can be put; but, if your Lordships will allow me, I would propose to give the House half an hour. If I may resume the Woolsack then, I shall be here, and I hope that your Lordships will, too.
House adjourned during pleasure.
4.23 p.m.
House resumed.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I think it would be convenient to take the Statement at this juncture.

BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"It has long been recognised that our nationality law is out of date. The previous Government published a Green Paper in 1977. We said in our election manifesto that we would introduce a new British Nationality Act. I have published today a White Paper which contains our proposals for legislation. A Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.
"It is widely accepted that we need a new Citizenship confined to those who have close connections with the United
892
Kingdom. We propose that this should be known as British citizenship.
"The Green Paper proposed that all those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who did not become British citizens should become British Overseas citizens. We have, however, been impressed with the argument that a separate citizenship should be established for the dependencies as a whole. We propose that this should be called citizenship of the British dependent territories. I emphasise that the establishment of this separate citizenship will not alter the United Kingdom's obligations and commitments to our overseas territories.
"Those who are now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but do not qualify for British citizenship or for citizenship of the British dependent territories will become British overseas citizens.
"Children born in the United Kingdom (or the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man) will normally acquire British Citizenship by birth. But we think that in principle there is a good case for providing, with the safeguards contemplated in the White Paper, that a child of parents neither of whom is a British citizen and neither of whom is settled here should not acquire British citizenship solely by his birth in the United Kingdom.
"A British citizen by birth, whether male or female, will transmit his or her citizenship to the first generation born abroad, and, normally, to the first generation only. But children born abroad to Crown servants who are British citizens will be citizens by birth, and there will be special provisions for children born abroad to certain other people who have close connections with business and other organisations based in the United Kingdom, or with some international bodies.

893
"All adults, whether Commonwealth citizens or foreigners, who wish to obtain British citizenship will do so by naturalisation.
"The present automatic entitlement of wives to obtain our citizenship by registration will be ended. Instead, both husbands and wives will be able to apply for naturalisation on the same terms as others, though after three years' residence instead of five.
"The present entitlements to acquire citizenship by registration possessed by wives, and by Commonwealth citizens who were settled here before 1st January 1973, will be preserved for an interim period of two years.
"After careful consideration, we have decided not to introduce any restrictions on the holding of dual nationality by those people who come here and acquire British citizenship by naturalisation or registration.
"Citizenship of the British dependent territories will be acquired under the same general pattern as that proposed for British citizenship. This citizenship will not give the right of entry to a dependency other than that with which a person is connected.
"British overseas citizenship represents in essence the relationship with the United Kingdom held by people connected with countries which were once part of the British Empire, or whose ancestral connections with the United Kingdom or its present dependencies are not sufficiently close to qualify them for British citizenship or citizenship of the British dependent territories. Children born after the Act comes into force to parents who have become British overseas citizens will not themselves hold that citizenship.
"I make it clear once again that we shall continue to recognise the special position for immigration purposes of certain United Kingdom passport holders, mainly from East Africa, and we shall maintain our undertaking to continue the special voucher scheme for them.
"It will no longer be necessary to use the term 'British Subject' as the common status of all people connected
894
with the Commonwealth. In the Bill, the only expression denoting the common status of all people connected with the Commonwealth will be "Commonwealth citizen".
"All those who have citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time when the Act comes into force will acquire one of the new citizenships. No one who is then a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will be left without a citizenship. Generally speaking, those citizens who or whose parents or grandparents were born, adopted, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom will become British citizens. Those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies from overseas who have been here for five years and are settled will also become British citizens.
"There is a small group of people, formerly stateless and most of them children, who have become patrial by registration overseas and who we think ought to be given whichever citizenship their mothers acquire. Apart from these, every citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is patrial will become a British citizen and no one who has the right of abode in this country will lose it. In the long term, only British citizens will have the right of abode. But individual people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but now have the right of abode will retain it. The Bill will not adversely affect the position under the immigration law of anyone who is lawfully settled in the United Kingdom, whether or not he becomes a British citizen. Nor will it affect our commitment to admit the wives and dependent children of men lawfully settled here.
"When the Act comes into force there will be some applications for citizenship still outstanding. The Bill will provide that an application for citizenship which has been properly made and is still under consideration at the time when changes in the law come into effect should be dealt with according to the law at the time when it was made, though if citizenship is granted it will, of course, be whichever of the new ones is appropriate.
"Mr. Speaker, I commend our proposals to the House".

895
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. It is a lengthy one, on a very complicated subject and therefore I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that detailed comment will need to await both further study of the Statement and of the White Paper itself. I would say at this stage that I welcome in principle the proposal to bring in a new British Nationality Act. It is clearly needed. Indeed, it is something we had intended to do, as foreshadowed in the 1977 Green Paper. I would ask the Minister, first, whether the Government intend to seek to discuss this with the other Commonwealth countries, whether discussions have already taken place and whether any indications have come from Commonwealth countries of their views; because, as he has indicated in the Statement, there is a proposal for Commonwealth citizenship and there is, therefore, I assume, a need to seek reciprocity about that. I would ask also whether there are any implications for our citizenship law in the law of the EEC to be taken into account.
Perhaps I could now turn to the question of the status of women and ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether he can confirm these that proposals confer full legal rights of citizenship on British women as far as are concerned, first, equal rights with men on transmission of citizenship itself, equal entitlement for a foreign spouse of either sex to naturalisation and equal treatment for foreign fiancés and fiancées and spouses, with the same right of entrance into this country, regardless of sex.
I would agree with the conclusion indicated by the Government that it would be better on reflection not to make all those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who do not become British citizens, "British overseas citizens", the new category which is proposed and which was envisaged in the earlier Green Paper. The working party of Justice was among those who had misgivings about the original proposals partly because of dangers of statelessness arising. The Justice working
896
party also suggested that such persons should be given a citizenship identifying them with a particular territory or country. I would ask the noble Lord whether this proposal would give as it is called here "citizenship of the British Dependent Territories" with any dangers of statelessness arising.
The only other comment that I would make at this stage is that I would certainly welcome warmly the decision to retain dual nationality. I think that that would be very widely accepted.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and, on the whole, welcome the idea of a new nationality law which will bring some consistency into a very complicated field. In particular, we very much welcome what appears to be a complete absence of sex discrimination—which will be a considerable step forward; although, in this context, I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in asking about the question of fiancés and fiancées. The question of wives and mothers is a fairly clear one. That of fiancés and fiancées is not entirely so. We cannot from these Benches think that this idea of dividing—not only as suggested by the Labour Green Paper into sheep and goats —into sheep and two kinds of goats is a very good one.
It would have been a much fitter end to a chapter of the British Commonwealth if we could have incorporated the relatively small number of people to whom this applies within full British citizenship. But since this is the situation that we have, there is one serious question that I should like to ask of the noble Lord. Given this situation of something that Kipling never thought of—which is lesser breeds, half within and half without the law—if you are one of these peculiar forms of half citizens and you get expelled from the country you are in, what is your relationship then with this country? Will these people (having had UK and Colonies citizenship) have the right to come in if they are expelled from the countries in which they now live? I think that is an important question.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the replies they have given to the Statement

897
of my right honourable friend today. I should be thankful if your Lordships would take the same view as that of the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who expressed the hope that detailed comment on this White Paper might await another, perhaps less exciting occasion. Incidentally, this White Paper, follows in many respects the recommendations of the previous Administration's Green Paper; except at the very beginning—something which caught the attention of both noble Lords, who have spoken—where there are proposals (and we are talking at the moment of proposals; legislation will have to follow) for three forms of citizenship and not two.
Perhaps I may now try to reply to the questions which were asked of me. This is a different situation from that in which the Commonwealth found itself in 1947 when members of the Commonwealth shared the same citizenship. Bearing that in mind, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that we are naturally in touch with Commonwealth countries from time to time on nationality matters. I would stresss that there is nothing in the White Paper which needs disturb in any way our friends in Commonwealth countries or in the dependencies. The noble Lord asked whether these proposals would have any implications for our membership of the EEC. When we joined the EEC, we had to define who our nationals were from those who held citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies; we shall now have to redefine those who are our nationals for EEC purposes within the scope of the proposals of the White Paper.
The noble Lord asked me three questions about the position of men and women under these proposals and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, joined with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in asking them. My answers are: yes, in these proposals there is equality between the sexes as far as the conferment of nationality is concerned; yes, in these proposals there is equality between the sexes as far as transmission of nationality is concerned; as far as the immigration, the entry, of fiancés or fiancées is concerned, my last two answers refer only to the question of nationality. For the conferment for the purposes of nationality, the White Paper proposes full equality between the sexes. If your Lordships want to pursue the question of
898
the entry of different sexes, that must be pursued on another occasion.
Finally, the noble Lord opposite referred to the difficult question of statelessness with regard to British dependent territories. I may ask the noble Lord to glance at paragraph 103 of the White Paper, he will find this sentence:
"While account will be taken of the United Kingdom's obligations under the international convention on the reduction of statelessness, it is generally understood that the country of birth should be responsible for remedying the situation".
"The situation" is the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me about in the one main substantive question which he put forward.

HOUSING BILL
4.40 p.m.
Third Reading debate resumed.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, we have been able to confirm—though of course unofficially until Hansard, the record, is printed tomorrow—that the Minister for Housing in another place replied in the negative in answer to a supplementary question asked of him this afternoon as to whether the Government intended to retain the amendments in the Housing Bill. He went on to say that the Government would be considering pre-emption. Those were not the exact words he used. I paraphrase them.
After all the hard work that has been put into this Bill from all quarters of the House, I must categorically say that, as Leader of the House, I regret that this was said before the Bill left this House later today. I understand that this caused considerable dismay in your Lordships' House and it was natural that the matter should be raised as a genuine grievance, and I can but express my regret on behalf of the Government that this should have occurred.
Lord PEART: May I thank the noble Lord for what he has said? We accept the generosity—
Several noble Lords: Use the microphone!
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry. May I thank the noble Lord for what he

899
has said? We understand the difficulties, et cetera, and let us proceed. No argument about tittle-tattle, and withdraw "manoeuvre". I hope there is no manoeuvre on this. That is clear.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House for what he has said, which I think was a perfectly adequate statement which the House should accept without difficulty at all.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord a question? I understand that he paraphrased the Minister's statement. I do not quite understand why he did that. Did I misunderstand him? As he knows, Ministers' statements can be quoted in full in another Chamber.
Lord SOAMES: Yes, my Lords; but not before publication in the Official Report.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I ought to remind your Lordships that I had proposed to the House on the Motion of the Leader of the House that the Bill should now be read a Third time, after which there was a procedural motion, which was carried. We are now back here again. There was then a Statement. The Question which, as I understand it, is now before the House is that the said Bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the amendments.
Clause 3 [Meaning of "house", "flat", "dwelling-house" and "relevant time"]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 30, 31, 32, 68 and 69 with this amendment. The amendments to the commencement provisions for Chapter II of Part I will mean that, if
900
it proves practicable to get the necessary regulations et cetera made quickly, we shall be able to bring in the security of tenure provisions without waiting for the expiry of eight weeks from the date of enactment. We are of course eager for tenants to be granted security of tenure at the earliest possible moment. The other amendments will mean that as much as practicable of the provisions of the Bill will come into operation immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
The only provisions which will be left to be brought into operation by appointed day order are those which depend upon the making of regulations or orders or the prescription of the form of notices et cetera or where it is desirable that those affected should first be able to get copies of the Act. These amendments have been left to Third Reading when the Bill would be reaching its final form and the commencement provisions could be considered as a whole. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is an anti-climax after all that we have been through. I will take the Minister's word for this. I do not really follow every detail of it. I gather it is partly drafting, partly bridging and necessary to integrate the Bill. I think that would be correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Notice of purchase price and right to a mortgage]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 30, after ("7(2)") insert ("or (4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will ensure that a tenant will always be able to tell just how the price that his landlord quotes for his home has been worked out. Clause 10 deals with the notice which the landlord serves on the tenant, as soon as practicable after its initial response to his right to buy notice, giving details of the purchase price of his home. The intention is that the tenant should be able to tell from the notice exactly how the price has been worked out and what has affected it. It will tell him the market value of his home and the discount to which he is entitled, as well as the purchase price itself.
As well as value and discount, the cost floor provision in Clause 7(2) can also affect the price of a dwelling sold under the right to buy. If it has affected what a tenant must pay he must be told about it in the Clause 10 notice if he is to make proper sense of the price which his landlord is quoting. Clause 10 provides for this. But the price may also be affected by the maximum discount that the Secretary of State may prescribe by order under Clause 7(4). Where this happens, too, the tenant will obviously need details if he is to understand his landlord's Clause 10 notice fully. Clause 10 as drafted does not cover this point: this amendment puts that right. My Lords, this amendment is small, but it will avoid possible confusion and I respectfully suggest that it is well worthwhile. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, so far as I am concerned I find that amendment acceptable. It helps to clarify the Bill (which needs a lot of clarification) and it also helps people to understand what they are entitled to or concerned with.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment Nos. 3 to 11 en bloc:
Page 23, line 22, leave out ("this Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter II")
Page 23 line 23, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Chapter II")
Page 23 line 33, leave out ("this Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter II").
Clause 38 [Reimbursement of cost of tenant's improvements]:
Page 29, line 19, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
Clause 41 [Provision of information about tenancies]:
Page 31, line 18, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter")
Page 31 line 39, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter")
Page 31 line 42, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
Clause 43 [Consultation with secure tenants]:
Page 32, line 44, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
Clause 45 [Exemption certificates]:
Page 34, line 37, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have already spoken to these amendments, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
( "Restriction on residential requirements
—(1) In considering whether an applicant for local authority housing is entitled to be admitted to a housing list, a council shall take no account of the age of the applicant provided that he is over the age of 18 years.
(2) In the allocation of local authority housing, a council shall take no account of the length of time for which an applicant has resided in its area nor of the age of the applicant provided that he is over the age of 18 years, nor of the income of the applicant and his family.
(3) Where an applicant—

(a) is employed in the area of the local authority; or

(b) has been offered employment in the area of the local authority; or

(c) is over 60 years of age and wishes to move into the area of the local authority to be near a younger relative; or

(d) has special social or medical reasons for requiring to be housed within the area of the local authority,

admission to a housing list shall not depend on the fact that the applicant is resident in the area.
(4) Where a local authority has rules which give priority to applicants on its housing list it shall apply those rules to an applicant to whom subsection (3) above applies no less favourably than it applies them to a tenant of the local authority whose housing needs are similar to those of the applicant and who is seeking a transfer to another dwelling-house belonging to the local authority.
(5) In the allocation of local authority housing, a council shall not impose a requirement that an application must have remained in force for a minimum period before the applicant is eligible for the allocation of housing.
(6) In this section "housing list means a list of applicants for local authority housing which is kept by a council in connection with allocation of housing.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I said when withdrawing a somewhat similar amendment in Committee that I would probably come back at Report with a slightly different one. I did put one down but owing to pressure of time I did not move it, so I take the opportunity of doing so now. What I have done is remove two parts of my original amendment that were particularly criticised in Committee. One was the section giving someone seeking employment in an area

903
the opportunity to go on the housing list of that area. I gave that up a little reluctantly. The other section that I have removed is the one that dealt with the eligibility of someone with arrears of rent being accepted on the list. That, as a separate amendment, was debated on Report and was in fact withdrawn, the Minister alleging that it was unnecessary. I hope he is right.
I find the Government's attitude curious, as it was the Government that introduced an identical amendment at the Committee stage in another place in the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Bill and which now stands part of Clause 26 of that Bill. My present amendment is almost exactly the same as that Clause 26, of which part was in the original Bill and part (paragraphs 3 and 4 of my amendment) were Government amendments in Committee. So, my Lords, you will see that my amendment has a good provenance.
Forward-thinking people and reports have for a considerable time encouraged councils to make access to their housing lists easier. The Cullingworth Report in 1969 recommended that no one should be precluded from applying for or being considered for a council tenancy on any grounds whatsoever. They gave two main reasons: first, that only by open lists can an accurate assessment of relative needs be made, and it is very important nationally that this assessment can be made; and, secondly, that there is now—and let us remember this was written 11 years ago— a clear need for greater mobility in the public sector between councils. Our stock of council housing should be looked on as a national asset, to be used with a view to national as well as to local needs.
I mentioned in Committee the Centre for Environmental Studies article which showed that council house tenants have only half the chance of owner-occupiers of moving between authorities. It is understandable why the CBI (not exactly a leftist organisation) supports this doing away with residential requirements, as does the LBA, which is Conservative-controlled, which recommended to its members that they should abolish such requirements. Their mobility scheme is weakened if different periods of eligibility apply to different areas. This, of course, applies to the national mobility scheme
904
too. Restrictive qualifications will remain for single people or owner-occupiers, and those groups will be ineligible for the mobility scheme. Far more mobility could be created by eliminating residential requirements which are still in force for one-third of all councils. We want this amendment to bring to all areas what is good practice in some areas, for the benefit of everyone—the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned Hammersmith at the Committee stage. But without some statutory backing it will all take too long for the more backward councils to catch up.
It was 10 years after the Cullingworth Report that another Government report, Allocation of Council Housing, by the Housing Services Advisory Unit made exactly the same recommendation and admitted that little progress had been made in those 10 years. Still one-third of all councils have the same restrictive residential requirements in 1978 as in 1968, and one-fifth refuse to register single people under retirement age. I would ask your Lordships to remember that today over half of all households are made up of one or two people.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in answering me in Committee, begged the Committee to consider the desirability of trying to proceed by agreement and consent. I hope I have shown that, despite strong recommendations from highly respected people and reports—Culling-worth and the HSA Unit—there has been no progress that way. Why wait longer, when we have a Housing Bill going through Parliament? The needs of the nation are even more vital now. Industry desperately needs its workers, skilled and unskilled, to be mobile. I quoted the Prime Minister before when I moved an amendment on mobility; and she was asking for mobility. The CBI is urging it strongly, the unemployment situation demands it and Age Concern is pressing for it for other excellent reasons, which there is no need to dwell on. Could the Minister graciously give way and show that he can be flexible and forward-looking?
Although I am aware that there is a larger percentage of council houses in Scotland than in England and Wales, I still do not see why there should not be the same clause in both Bills. For

905
instance, why should a single person in Scotland get on a housing list, yet be prevented in many parts of England? It must seem absurd and intolerable to them. I was very impressed, when reading a report of the Committee stage discussion on this clause in another place, by how reasoned and reasonable it was, how there was a very real effort to achieve the best result for people individually and for the needs of the nation. I am convinced that if the Government can be forthcoming and forward-looking today, and be willing to accept the amendment, real progress can be made and there will be the possibility of the greater mobility that we all want. I beg to move.
4.56 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to support this very important amendment. As the noble Baroness has made clear, it is a non-partisan and a non-party-political amendment. I think the noble Baroness deserves our thanks for drafting and moving the amendment to deal with a matter of very considerable public interest. She herself has pointed out how 13 years have gone by since the Cullingworth Report of 1967, which I have often quoted in your Lordships' House, and there has been very little progress indeed. No doubt the Government will say that we ought to give a chance to the voluntary scheme recently devised, and I would say this: by all means let us give it a trial, but let us have something in the Bill as a long-stop. Maybe this clause should not be put into operation for, say, three years or five years, but let us have it there—or something extremely like it—so that there is a target towards which the voluntary scheme will, we hope, lead us.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I very warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. During this present period of very high unemployment we hear a great deal from the Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister that people should be willing to move from where they live to find work in areas where there is work available. Your Lordships may have read recently in the newspapers—perhaps those circulating more in the North of England than
906
in the London area—about a number of families from the Merseyside area, where there is endemic high unemployment, who took the Government at their word and went to areas where employment was available, and have now had to return to Merseyside extremely disillusioned, because not only was there no local authority housing available, or made available, for them, but they were not given any hope of getting accommodation in the future. In the case of one family—a man, his wife and four children—they had to live in a tent for some weeks. Considering the British summer, this is almost a greater hardship than being unemployed.
So I think this amendment is one to which the Government should be sympathetic because it complies with and supports their own policy of encouraging mobility. People should help themselves by going to seek employment where it lies. I hope the Government will give a favourable and optimistic reply.
4.59 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this new clause would in fact remove much of the freedom which local authorities enjoy to give a reasonable degree of preference to local people in the allocation of their housing. It would oblige them to take on to their lists people from outside their area who might meet some highly debatable criteria; for example, those wishing to move for some quite undefined—as the amendment states —"special social reason". I would not want to have to interpret that one to any housing committee of which I was ever a member. The result of the amendment would undermine the freedom which local authorities have to manage their housing stock. Yet this freedom is what enables local authorities to tailor their allocation policies to local needs and to give preference to local people where they think it is deserved. I can see no cause for this Bill to interfere with such matters; and I think the proposed new clause betrays a fundamental distrust of local authorities' ability to make sensitive and intelligent allocation decisions.
We do not even believe that the clause would have the effect noble Lords opposite intend, for the groups of people they have singled out. It will not, as I suspect they may be assuming, make it any more

907
certain that such people moving into an authority's area will, in fact, be treated on a par with local applicants. They will be certain only of going on the list, and then being treated on a par with tenants seeking a transfer; indeed, the effect of the clause could rebound, if some authorities made their transfer policies more restrictive in an effort to keep outsiders away. The clause also presents some formidable problems of definition and interpretation, if disputes about it were to have to go to the courts.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the Scottish Bill. There are substantial differences between conditions in England and Scotland which justify different treatment. For example, the proportion of public sector housing stock in Scotland is nearly double what it is in England and Wales. There are towns in Scotland, in fact, where the public sector has a virtual monopoly of rented accommodation, and it is nonsensical for the authority to impose more than a minimum of necessary rules about who can be admitted to the housing list. Nor are the Scottish local authorities planning to introduce a voluntary mobility scheme, although I hope very much that in due course they will become associated with the scheme in England and Wales.
My conclusion is that this clause as a whole is not well conceived, as well as being almost impossible to enforce. I do not believe that we should saddle local authorities with provisions of these kinds. Housing allocation policies are, and must be, a matter for locally-elected representatives, who are responsible for them to their electorate. The way to provide for people who need to move—and I say at once that we are, indeed, concerned about this—is through voluntary co-operation between one local authority and another. If we had some evidence to show that local authorities were either not acquiescing in that, or were not willing to consider it, then that might be one thing. But the fact is that this is precisely what the voluntary national mobility scheme, which is being promoted by the local authority associations themselves, with my right honourable friend's support, is going to provide. That is a far more satisfactory way than the heavy-handed
908
intervention in local affairs which this clause represents.
I was involved in another capacity in discussions of the whole proposals, when they were in the form of a Green Paper which the previous Government put out. I was then very concerned, on the one hand, to be sure that we could make a contribution to mobility, because it was obvious even then that the need for extra mobility would increase, and would become something of far greater significance and importance nationally than it had perhaps been in the past.
But I was also very seized with the great concern which local authorities were expressing and, indeed, it was because of that, and their willingness to see something done, that they all agreed to get out together a voluntary national mobility scheme, which would, hopefully, show what could be achieved within the context of their individual local housing situation, and could make a very important contribution. I really believe that that is the way forward.
I am not unsympathetic to the basic objectives of the amendment—quite the contrary. They set out to achieve something which we recognise as being important. But we must give what is being done at the moment, and what is being planned to be done, a chance to work. I would far rather that we did it in that way, than that we imposed some statutory obligation, such as this amendment sets out to do, with some of its shortcomings that I have mentioned. That must be the better way forward.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I found it not only rather sad and frustrating, but highly amusing that the Minister, in rejecting this amendment, used such phrases as,
"It would remove much of the freedom which local authorities enjoy"
and:
"The heavy-handed intervention in local affairs".
One of the themes that is running through the whole of this Bill is exactly that—removing much of the freedom which local authorities enjoy, and heavy-handed intervention in local affairs.
But then we come on to an area where it is absolutely necessary for central

909
Government to take some part. This is almost linked to the amendment on mobility moved on Report by my noble friend Lady David, which was turned down by the Government. It is all in aid of the Government's industrial employment policy, as they put it across, that there should be greater mobility. But there can be greater mobility only if people have somewhere to live. In all the papers on Saturday morning—certainly, it was in the Daily Mirror—there was a story about a man who twice moved 300 miles in order to get work, but could find nowhere to live so on each occasion he had to go back.
I absolutely agree that local authorities are put in a difficult situation. There are long waiting lists and the problems in some parts are more real than in others. This is where a local authority needs the help and support of central Government, and it can get this only if it is put into legislation. A local authority would then be under an obligation to find accommodation for an applicant who was employed in the area, or who had been offered employment in it.
As regards paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of the amendment, which states,
"is over 60 years of age and wishes to move into the area of the local authority to be near a younger relative…".
I wonder whether the Minister appreciates that putting this duty on to local authorities would have the economic and social result of keeping a great many old people out of residential accommodation, because they would be able to live near their relatives. This is a tremendous problem, as all the voluntary bodies which are concerned with old people have pointed out. It seems to me, since the Government have turned down the mobility amendment, that there should be flexibility —certainly, one or the other should be in this Bill—to enable local authorities to allocate their housing in a way which would improve and increase the mobility of labour, and which would also have the various other social advantages on which my noble friend expanded.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I wonder whether I might respond. I am pleased that I was able to amuse the noble Baroness. Perhaps that is something that one does not do what she says. The Bill, with the exception of the right to buy, which
910
is fundamental to the Government's policy, as has been said so many times, gives more freedom to local government in housing than it has had in many directions. If the noble Baroness would like me to go through the whole list of those, no doubt we could debate them on this or on some other occasion.
The fact is that here is a classic instance where local authorities individually, and local authority associations as such, are most concerned that there should not be imposed upon them the kind of obligations which this amendment seeks to impose, and which I suggest would be counterproductive. As to the mobility argument, I thought I had made it fairly clear and, if I did not, I gladly take the chance to do so again—that the Government are most anxious to do something about this and want to see the maximum mobility. But what we are saying is that to impose statutory obligations such as this, which would only cause local authorities to resent them and to find ways of making things difficult, is not the way to do it. The way to do it is as we are doing; that is, to enourage the voluntary national mobility scheme which is now being worked through. I say that that is the way forward.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before the Minister sits down may I say this?—I did not want to interrupt his flow. He said that, apart from the right to buy, this is the fundamental Conservative policy. But that does not detract from the fact that it is taking away all autonomy from local authorities. You cannot say, except for that, that local authorities have complete autonomy and flexibility. I do not expect the Minister to smile at that, but I think I have made him smile more often than he gives me credit for.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, may I support my noble friend. Many members of your Lordships' House spent many years in another place, and week after week dealt with local authority housing cases. It seems to me to be quite wrong that we should try to impose on local authorities an obligation to take anybody from anywhere, provided that they have a large enough family or other need. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that many local authorities already make provision for people who are

911
coming into an area because of new employment opportunities which have been found for them. Provided that it is certified by the employer that people have been offered a job in that area and that they require accommodation, all forward-looking local authorities certainly endeavour to deal with problems of that nature. That deals with the mobility of labour point to which the noble Baroness referred.
There is still a great deal of community spirit. People take pride in having lived in their home town for many years. Local authorities throughout the country endeavour to keep a very strict and a very fair points system for those on their housing lists. Time and again young couples came to one and said, "We have now got 25 points. My pals have now got a house and they had 29 points, so we should get our house in another year". No local authority will be able to give any local person any idea of when they are going to be housed if anybody from anywhere, with no claim on the area and no job, is able to arrive and say, "Because I have a family of six or eight, I take priority over other people who have spent their whole life in the area".
I am sure that my noble friend is right in agreeing that local authorities should work together to build up a voluntary system, wherever it can be applied, because the differences between local authorities and the different problems which they face are known to every Member of this noble House. I feel that we should leave it to the local authorities. We should encourage them to extend, where they have not done so before, mobility of labour if people are coming to work for a firm and have accredited jobs. But we should not impose upon local authorities an obligation to ignore the needs of local residents—the affiliation, the family ties, the local ties and the time that they have spent in their own community—and override them. Those people must be considered. They must not be overridden by anybody from anywhere coming in and superseding their claims for accommodation.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, last week I spoke, I fear, rather roughly to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for pleading so often for flexibility and autonomy for local government and then for introducing
912
amendments which took it away. I have to say, though very gently, that here she is doing it again. I certainly confirm that the Association of District Councils would much prefer to be left to get on with the development of a voluntary mobility scheme. Councils increasingly see the need for this, but to impose upon them a statutory scheme would be counterproductive.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, could have read my amendment. It does not ask that large families should be imposed on local authorities. Subsection (3) states very clearly which categories of people will have admission to the housing list and that their admission shall not depend on the fact that the applicant is resident in the area. It is definitely for certain categories—for people who have got work there, or who have been offered work. It is also for certain categories like the elderly who need to be near relatives and for others who have social or medical reasons. The Minister poured scorn on the social or medical reasons. But that phrase has been accepted by his Government in another Bill, so it seems strange that he should be so critical of it. As housing authorities are constantly having to make decisions about who, on medical reasons, is to have a council house it does not seem to me to be a very strange one.
Owner-occupiers already have the opportunity to move flexibly. The percentage of council house tenants who move is very small, compared with owner-occupiers. This amendment is trying to help council tenants to be a little more mobile. My noble friend has dealt with the point about freedom for local authorities which the Minister mentioned, so I shall not take it up again. However, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister can speak so confidently—I almost said arrogantly—and can ignore these very distinguished reports. I am not satisfied with the answers that the Minister has given and I shall press the amendment.
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents 115.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Amherst, E.

Gosford, E.

Pargiter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Parry, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Peart, L.

Bacon, B.

Grey, E.

Plant, L.

Baker, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Birk, B.

Hooson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Hylton, L.

Rochester, L.

Brockway, L.

Ingleby, V.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Caradon, L.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Jeger, B.

Shinwell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Simon, V.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leonard, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Diamond, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maelor, L.

Wall, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milford, L.

Walston, L.

Galpern, L.

Milverton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

George-Brown, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barnby, L.

Gainford, L.

Mansfield, E.

Bellwin, L.

Geddes, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Marley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Glendevon, L.

Middleton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Godber of Willington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bourne, L.

Gormanston, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gowrie, E.

Moyne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gridley, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Caithness, E.

Haig, E.

Norfolk, D.

Caldecote, V.

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

Northchurch, B.

Clitheroe, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

Piercy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hertford, M.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Redmayne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Holderness, L.

Rochdale, V.

Crathorne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Ilchester, E.

Seafield, E.

De La Warr, E.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Derwent, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sharples, B.

Digby, L.

Kimberley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Dulverton, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Dundee, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Eccles, V.

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

914

915

Teviot, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Trenchard,V.

Vickers, B.

Westbury, L.

Vaizey, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 47 [Application to existing tenancies]:
Clause 49 [Exclusion of certain housing associations from Chapter II]:
5.25 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 35, line 20, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
Page 36, line 9, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these with Amendment No.1. I beg to move.
On Question amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Protected shorthold tenancies]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 38, line 4, at end insert (", or any other dwelling-house in the same building.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, which we have discussed in a slightly different context before, I think is familiarly known to us all now as the winkling amendment. When I moved it in Committee it was very much wider and referred to dwelling-houses not only in the same building but in the same area—indeed I think it went further afield as well and the Minister pointed out that it could be rather difficult if it was going to cover properties owned by the same landlord in other parts of the country. So, on this occasion, I have narrowed it to what I feel is an absolutely bare minimum, and I hope that on this occasion the Government will accept it.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the shorthold as it was proposed in the first version of the Government's Bill was that then there was nothing to protect a tenant who was fully protected from having an insecure shorthold tenancy foisted upon him. But, in another place, an amendment was introduced at the Committee stage which spells out that
916
such a tenant who is fully protected will retain protection and that any shorthold agreement signed by the tenant will have no legal force. However, there is a snag even here because this safeguard only applies to the accommodation actually occupied, and we can see circumstances arising where the landlord offers to transfer a tenant into a bigger or better room or flat in the same multi-occupied house. Therefore, I think this safeguard should be widened to cover such an eventuality.
In the Commons Committee the Minister for Housing stated that the Government had carefully considered the issue raised here, yet had come down against it on the basis that there might well be occasions when the transfer from a fully-protected tenancy to a shorthold in the same building or an adjacent building would be advantageous to the tenant. We feel that such a circumstance, and the opportunity for exploitation created by not blocking this potential loophole, would be so rare that it far outweighs any consideration of potential loss of tenant opportunity.
I am particularly impressed by the press notice that was put out by the Conservative controlled Westminster Council as recently as last month, when Councillor David Weeks, who is chairman of the Westminster Housing Committee, said that he supported Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, MP, in the view that it was important to ensure that landlords should not be able to winkle out tenants from existing tenancies where they may be secure and into new ones which were less secure. He said that he would like to see the shorthold tenancy procedures tightened up considerably. This was not only from a Tory council, but a Tory housing committee, and somebody who also went on to say:
"On the points I have made I shall seek to publicise and support the good work of the Inner London Conservative Members of Parliament. We will certainly take all steps that we together feel are appropriate to pursue the interests of private rented tenants".
It was points like this, on the safeguard of tenants, that we wanted to see embodied in the shorthold provisions, which make all the difference between the attitude of the Opposition to this Bill and whether

917
the shorthold provisions are found acceptable or not. A number of the safeguards which were in the original Rhys Williams Bill, and which have been put forward not only by the Opposition but also by Members of the Government's own Party, in fact do take away this terrible anxiety which is going to beset so many people. I think it was on this particular amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, spoke at Committee, and he said that from his experience as a solicitor working in this field he was aware of the tremendous suffering and anguish which goes with this feeling of insecurity. This is why it is essential, even if the Government feel this is a small loophole, that it should in fact be blocked. This amendment has narrowed it down very considerably, to any other dwelling-house in the same building. I hope on this occasion the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, as one who wishes the shorthold concept goodwill and a fair wind in principle, as I have said earlier in the discussions on this Bill, I do hope that the Government will accept this amendment. From my experience, both as a lawyer and as a councillor, this was the kind of loophole which was used by irresponsible and ruthless landlords under previous legislation, when attempts were made to persuade fairly innocent tenants to move around and lose the protection they thought they had. I fear there is always such an element, as I feel sure your Lordships on all sides will agree. I must say again that most landlords are perfectly reasonable, rational, fair-minded people, but there is a tiny minority of bad landlords, and one passes laws to protect the public against the bad and not against the good.
I cannot see why this very modest protection against trickery and chicanery, which will be employed by a very small minority of landlords, should not be agreed by the Government. If the Government want shorthold to work, if they want the private rented sector to come alive again and if they believe the short-hold tenancy is the way to do this, why not give it a chance and experiment with it, in spite of some of the threats that have been made in another place. If we really do want to give this new concept a chance why do we not accept the safe
918
guards which Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, and others who were the authors of the proposal, originally suggested themselves? For those of us who have goodwill towards the concept, it would be a great comfort to know that the Government have made this concession in order to make the concept of shorthold work.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, have said. Only last Sunday I happened to meet a lady—in fact I sat next to her at a luncheon party—an elderly lady, who has lived in a very small flat in the centre of London for 40 years. She told me that the building has recently been taken over by one of these big property companies and they are doing their utmost to persuade her to move from her flat, because they want to amalgamate it with a neighbouring flat and make a large penthouse, as I think they are called. They have offered her carpets, curtains and so on to move to a slightly larger flat for much about the same rent. What they said to her was,"Of course, you will have equal security. You are a regulated tenant at present, and when you move to your new flat you will still be a regulated tenant".
Of course, this is true at this moment in time, as they say on the radio; it is true this week, but it will not be true once this Bill has received the Royal Assent and becomes an Act. This lady, who is an elderly lady, had no idea that a Housing Bill is going through Parliament; she had never heard of it. She had simply no idea about shortholds and the inroads that the Government are trying to make, and will succeed in making, in security of tenure. I am happy to say I was able to warn her about what will happen, and warn her to stay in her present apartment and not listen to such blandishments or inducements to move with promises of free carpets and curtaining and so on. This is just the sort of thing which is going to go on if equal protection is not given to adjacent flats in the same building. Therefore, I support this amendment and I do hope the Government will take a realistic view.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I find myself in something of a dilemma over this amendment and the two which

919
follow. In principle I am against imposing yet further restrictions upon potential landlords. Apart from anything else, these are likely to be the last straw which makes them decide not to put their property on the market, to the great detriment of students, single people in their first jobs, young couples who have not yet saved enough money for a deposit on a house, and so on. On the other hand, it must be said that the Government themselves are contributing towards this state of affairs—by which I mean a sense of pessimism, despondency and cynicism among landlords—for example, by permitting tenants under Clause 53 of this Bill to give their landlords an unjustifiably short period of notice.
Perhaps the Opposition series of amendments will not make things much worse, apart from paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 16, which, if I have read it correctly, is a very strange paragraph indeed. If the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she comes to sum up on this amendment could give a guarantee that your Lordships' acceptance of Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 would mean that the official Opposition would reverse its hostility to the whole shorthold concept, and if she could also give a guarantee that the official Opposition would, as a quid pro quo for your Lordships' acceptance of these amendments, undertake not to modify the short-hold scheme, except possibly in the most minor ways, in the event of their returning to power, then I suggest to your Lordships that these amendments are worth accepting, in a spirit of compromise, in order to ensure that potential landlords will freely make their properties available to those who so desperately need short-term accommodation.
Lord MTLVERTON: My Lords, I support this amendment, as I have done some others. After studying letters received from organisations such as Age Concern and this one from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and having tried to grasp this Bill and tried to come to a fair decision in my mind, I would support this amendment, as I did the previous one. As the Government know, I have always supported them and I am not always going against them, but on certain subjects—this subject and social security—perhaps I am more with noble Lords opposite than with those on this side.
5.39 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I think we should make one or two things quite clear that would not be clear if one listened only to what has just been said. I made it clear in Committee that the Government of course recognise the validity of the concern that has been expressed, that existing statutory and protected tenants may be persuaded to sign away their security by agreeing to take a shorthold. That is precisely why the Bill makes it quite clear that an existing statutory or protected tenant cannot have his tenancy converted into shorthold. This shorthold proposal is basically about people who now do not have accommodation, who want to become tenants of accommodation which does not exist at all. There is great concern for what will happen to them.
The noble Baroness said as regards an earlier amendment that I had made her laugh. Some of these points make me laugh. How can they be so anxious about people who at the moment do not have accommodation? This is all about accommodation which at present is not available—it is not there at all. We have gone to the trouble of making it clear—because we recognise the kind of possibility to which this amendment refers that if one is at present a statutory or protected tenant, one's accommodation cannot be converted into shorthold. That is the first point and I think that it is pretty fundamental.
Our view is that it is right to restrict the prohibition on an existing tenant being given a shorthold to the dwelling in which he is already a statutory or protected tenant. So, taking my first point, I repeat: Yes, we say that one cannot have that converted into a shorthold and we think that that is right. We think that that is where the risk is greatest. As has been said, if someone were to try to persuade a tenant, under whatever blandishments—and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, that there are some people who would try to do that—then he would be outside what the Bill does. That is where the risk is greatest.
But it might be to a tenant's advantage to move to a more convenient flat in the same building, even if his existing tenancy was fully protected whereas his new one

921
was a shorthold. There seems to be no reason to prevent someone from doing this, provided we can be certain that he is fully aware of what he is doing. That really picks up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made when he expressed his concern, quite properly, about those who may not know what they are doing.
So we believe that we can be certain of this by ensuring that there is spelled out on the shorthold notice precisely what the shorthold is, and that it offers less security to an existing statutory or protected tenant, certainly less than his present tenancy.
During the Committee stage the noble Baroness asked if she could see a draft of the notice that would spell this out, that would be so categorical and so clear that it would at least, to some extent, satisfy her. I said then that I was not in a position at that time to produce such a draft, and nor indeed am I today. But I said then, and I repeat the assurance now as categorically as I am able, that it will make absolutely clear to an existing tenant that shorthold offers less security than his existing tenancy. That is absolutely fundamental and I accept the point.
Of course, I am concerned, and I accept my noble friend Lord Milverton's concern about the matter. But the fact is that the whole basis of shorthold is that it is an experiment. If it succeeds it will offer a great step forward in stopping the awful decline that there has been in the private rented sector. No one who has any interest in housing as such could doubt that something must be done. If it is not perfect, if it will not achieve all that we want and it will not achieve as much in view of what has been said by the Labour Party in another place; of course, it will frighten off some prospective landlords—we believe it right to continue to try to bring this kind of accommodation on to the market, and once and for all to stop that awful decline that has taken place. In doing that we also accept that we must be careful to ensure that those who will be affected, who might want to move, will know what it is exactly that they have taken on. So, all right, if it were not made absolutely crystal clear then there could be danger—I would not say otherwise. The fact is that we are restricting shorthold only to new accommodation; it cannot
922
apply to existing tenancies. Moreover, we shall make it clear to anyone who wishes to change that we shall not take away from him the right so to change, should he so desire, in the knowledge of all that that means.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and a number of points struck me about this really quite small amendment. Apart from himself, nobody has taken the side of the Government as regards this amendment. The Government have had no support whatever. However, there has been support for the amendment from different parts of the House.
The Minister said—and I accept this sincerity—that he is very anxious that shorthold should work, that people should be treated fairly, and I believe that he means that. I think that he is an honest man who means what he says. Nevertheless, we and various other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment believe that this amendment is necessary in order to ensure that. We are not talking about a Minister's good intentions: we are talking about a piece of legislation. Some of the points which the noble Lord made when replying to the amendment generally concerned short-hold, but they were not strictly related to this amendment.
Trying to get more accommodation on to the market so that people can rent and we can house more people is something with which I personally go along. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Monson, a promise on behalf of a future Labour Government or of other people apart from myself. But there is no doubt that the more safeguards that could be put into the Bill and the less area for suffering and anxiety, the greater the support there will obviously be certainly from the Labour Party and certainly from the next Government.
The fact is that the Government are so rigid about this matter. Having narrowed this down to "dwelling-house in the same building" the Minister still says, no, he cannot accept this and we come back to the point about the notice. This is a matter of some importance. In Committee the Minister said that a notice would be drafted to make all clear. I am not saying at this stage that a notice would necessarily

923
cover the point that I have been making in this amendment. However, we have had a Committee stage and a report Stage and the Minister still comes forward and says that he is unable to produce a notice. I think that it is quite wrong for this House to accept something which, quite frankly, with great respect, is on spec—we are being asked to take a type of speculative action. I am sure that the noble Lord's intentions are very good. But if it will take all that time to draft something, the main ingredient of which has to be simplicity and clarity, then I do not hold out much hope for it. But even if that were so, questions would still arise.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, with his personal example, put the situation extremely well. I wonder whether the lady to whom he was referring would really have been in a position to do what was in her own best interests if she had in fact had a copy of the notice. I rather doubt it. We have seen this all across the board. One of the reasons why the take-up of rent allowances is so low is that people do not understand that they are entitled to them or they do not even read about them. That, frankly, is not the way to legislate. If we want to shut that loophole, if we want to make absolutely certain that people will not be moved from a protected tenancy, and I say again "in the same building", to one that is unprotected like a shorthold, then we must put those few words into the legislation. We have had several debates on the subject and I do not propose to prolong the matter any further. I intend to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should like to make a few more comments before the amendment is pressed. First, as regards the notice, it really is not fair to say that because the notice is not here one is having difficulty in producing it. That is not the case at all. It is quite normal practice. I am advised that in situations such as this notices of this kind are, in fact, prepared when the legislation is there and before it is enacted. I think that that is something of a red herring. But what is much more important is that, if the amendment is passed, it means that no one will be able to take a shorthold tenancy within the same building in which he lives, whether or not he wants to. He
924
will be excluded for all time from having that opportunity, if he so wishes. That must be absolutely clear; that is what the amendment says.
That is what we believe is wrong because, quickly to recap, we are saying that people must know, and will know, that they will not be allowed to have their existing tenancy converted—that will not be permitted. This amendment seeks to prevent a person ever being able to take a tenancy of a shorthold nature in the same building.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it has been said more than once that this is a complicated Bill. I think that there will he general agreement on that. There are various courses that one can follow if one encounters a Bill of this character. One is to accept the party line, by which I mean that, if my noble friends on the Front Bench decide to press for a Division, one joins them in the appropriate Lobby. The other course is, because of one's ignorance of the subject—and I confess that I am in that unfortunate situation—to ask questions. I listened to the noble Minister when he replied to my noble friend. He made some remarks which appeared to me to be contradictory; at any rate, I confess that I failed to follow them. Let me state what they were.
First, he said that the primary purpose of the shorthold proposition is to make more accommodation available to people who need it. I follow that and, indeed, I agree with it; I think that my noble friend Lady David also averred. Then the Minister said that a person who is a tenant of a dwelling of some kind—it could be a house, a flat or a flat associated with a block of flats—could not obtain a shorthold agreement. I hope that the noble Lord will correct me if I have misunderstood what he said. He said that a tenant in that situation could not obtain a shorthold agreement. Then he said that anyone who managed to contrive a shorthold agreement would have less security than an existing tenant. I tried to follow that; I tried to make something of it.
Therefore, when is a tenant secure? Is a tenant secure as a regulated tenant who has been occupying premises under a regulated agreement? Is that tenant secure? If that tenant is approached

925
by the landlord who suggests that he might buy the premises, but the tenant declines the proposition and says that he wishes to continue residence there, and applies for a shorthold agreement which he cannot get, what is his position? According to the Minister, it appears that he has more security than if he has a shorthold agreement. What is the provision, in legislation, in understanding or in some form which enables that existing tenant to remain where he is and be secure? Why do I ask that? I ask it because I may find myself in that situation and I want to know where I am. When I say that I want to know where I am, I am sure that I am not unlike hundreds of thousands of tenants, or would-be tenants, in the United Kingdom. I do not blame the Minister for that. In parenthesis, I would say that no one could endeavour—indeed with some success—to present his argument with greater clarification than the noble Lord the Minister. I make no complaint on that ground. But when he said what I have just ventured to repeat, I want to know where one stands.
I should like to raise one final point, and I am addressing myself now to my Front Bench colleagues. I am asked to vote and, if I may say so—I hope that this is not hearsay—I want to know the reason. There is nothing particularly wrong with that. I could, of course, do what frequently happens; that is, disappear and find another engagement. That is not unfamiliar in this Assembly. But I am here, and it would appear to be improper to disappear when a vote is about to be taken. If the Minister cannot satisfy me as to what a person in my situation is likely to encounter, perhaps my noble friend Lady Birk can. Her knowledge of the subject is unchallengeable, and she has presented the case for the Opposition in a fashion that is worthy of the utmost admiration. I mean what I say; I am not in the habit of indulging in compliments. I have always found it a bit of a bore because one has frequently had to change one's mind on that subject. Either the Minister will satisfy me, and perhaps satisfy a great many others, or my noble friend will do so. But, for heaven's sake, let us know exactly where we are and where we are likely to be.
While I am on my feet, I shall put a further point which has a bearing on this,
926
although it is not implicit in the amendment or in what the amendment seeks to do. It concerns the question of rent. For example, if one cannot apply for a shorthold agreement—which I understand, if agreed, could continue for five years—and the landlord says that that person can stay where he is, that he is more secure where he is than if he had a shorthold agreement, but only on condition that he pays the rent that the landlord wants him to pay, that is where the trouble emerges. The landlord may receive many applications from would-be tenants, among them people who have come to the country recently, who are associated with the Diplomatic Corps or who are engaged in business, and whose rents are paid for them by an embassy or the Government that creates the embassy or by some business organisation. What is the position of that landlord?
People are inclinded to attack landlords, but I do not do that; I always introduce what might be described as motivation: why do people do this or that? It can be applied in many directions. So I do not criticise landlords. I can understand the landlord saying, "If I have to choose between someone who is prepared to pay me £100 a week rather than someone who is prepared to pay only what he originally paid, £75 a week, naturally I would prefer the £100 a week. "What is the answer to that? Is there an answer to that? Is there an answer from any quarter, either from the Government or my noble friends of the Opposition?
If there is no answer to that, then I am in for a rough time. I am going to be misinformed, misunderstood, frustrated, bamboozled, flabbergasted—indeed, I was going to say a metaphysical condition, but I do not think there is any metaphysics in it; it is more like physics than metaphysics—in a situation that I dislike. I ask the noble Minister, or my noble friends, to clarify the point for me.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Milverton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gosford, E.

Mishcon, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northfield, L.

Balogh, L.

Gregson, L,

Ogmore, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Oram, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rhodes, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blease, L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Bowden, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

David, B.[Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Diamond, L.

Leonard, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Longford, E.

Wall, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Galpern, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Melchett, L.

White, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Milford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Mountevans, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ampthill, L. Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Avon, E.

Glendevon, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Baker, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Balerno, L.

Gormanston, V.

Northchurch, B.

Barnby, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray, L.

Orkney, E.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Bessborough, E.

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

Piercy, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caithness, E.

Hertford, M.

St. Davids, V.

Chelwood, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandford, L.

Clancarty, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shannon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Luke, L.

Swinfen, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Todd, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trenchard, V.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Digby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaizey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Westbury, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Middleton, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 38, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) A tenancy of a dwelling-house is not a protected shorthold tenancy if it relates to a dwelling-house which—

(a) was subject to a regulated tenancy at the commencement of this part of this Act; or

(b) has, since the commencement of this Part of this Act, become vacant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. I put down this amendment for consideration on Report, but it was not reached until such a late hour—as has, I am afraid, usually and regrettably been the case with the private sector of this Bill that I did not move it. The Government gave an undertaking just before the last election that shorthold would be restricted to property that was empty on a given date. This was also implied in the Conservative manifesto. The Private Member's Bill of the honourable Member for Kensington was also to be applied to empty property.
There may be a case for shorthold on empty property if, as the Government claim, a great deal of property is being kept deliberately empty and withheld from the market. But the removal of security of tenure from property as soon as it becomes empty is a definite change of policy from the one that has been adhered to by Conservative and Labour Governments alike, which is that the security goes with the dwelling. The Government's shorthold policy will mean a rapid erosion of this principle. It will lead to a transfer within a few years of the private rented sector from security of tenure to insecurity of tenure, and all that that means for tenants of rented accommodation.
People often have to move for compelling reasons which the Government seem unwilling to accept, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did not persuade me when we dealt with this on an earlier part of the Bill. He said, "People have a choice. They can either stay in their present accommodation as regulated tenants or, it they wish, they can move somewhere else and have the option of a shorthold". But people often do net have that choice; they sometimes have to move. They might have served abroad and come back and have no option, and not everybody
930
works for large industrial corporations which are able to lend them money to buy houses and so on. So they have no option, or they might have to move to another part of the country.
The Prime Minister the other day stressed again how important it was to have mobility of labour in order to reduce unemployment. All this seems to be an inconsistent and contradictory policy. I believe people will not be willing to move if they must go on to shorthold with only limited security. This is not a party matter. Indeed, Conservative honourable Members for Inner London and other constituencies in the big cities are as concerned as everybody else; and of course they know full well of the problems from their experience in their constituencies. Even at this late stage of the Bill's progress the Government have a chance to think again.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked what was my party's attitude to shorthold. So far as I am concerned, I think it could be a useful experiment if it were restricted to empty property, as the Government promised during the last election; it was one of the planks of their platform. They made it quite clear on the radio—I heard it myself—that shorthold would be restricted to empty property. They also made it clear in their manifesto. Now, however, the Bill tries to change the whole concept of security of tenure which hitherto has gone with the dwelling; whoever moves into it has the same security as the previous tenant, and of course that security and the regulation of tenancies was put on by a Conservative Government—I do not claim at all that it was put on by my party—and all credit to them, and rightly so. We should, therefore, go slowly and start this interesting experiment with property that is empty now—which the Government claim is remaining empty because people cannot let it—and go on from there. But to try to bring it in for all property once there is a move of tenancy is, I submit, far too sweeping. I beg to move.
6.12 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am not aware of the broadcast to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, and I am not aware that the Conservative manifesto said we would restrict shortholds to empty

931
properties. If the noble Lord maintains that what he said is so he surprises me, because I must say that the amendment would restrict the scope of shorthold in a way that we would find totally unacceptable because, as he said, it would limit shorthold to dwellings that are vacant when the shorthold provisions come into force.
As I explained in Committee, we accept that vacant properties should be an important source of shortholds, but they should not be the only source. Landlords must be encouraged to go on letting rather than to sell when they obtain vacant possession. I hope that shorthold will do this and thus help to meet the demand for short-term rented accommodation that is so apparent in our cities. That is another aspect of the private rented sector which has removed so much of this type of accommodation—people have sold rather than re-let when accommodation has become vacant, because a regulated tenant has moved on or whatever. That has been one of the greatest sources of loss of this type of accommodation. If we were to do what the amendment suggests, we would not be helping that situation, which I consider to be a major factor in what is happening to the private rented sector, quite apart from the introduction of new lettings that would become available.
If the amendment were accepted, the scope of shorthold would be so limited that it could not hope to make a longterm contribution to meeting housing needs. I accept without question the noble Lord's sincerity when he says he would like the scheme to be given a chance to show what it can do with the restrictions he would like to impose on it. I suggest it would not have that chance with those restrictions. The need for a method of letting that does not involve lifetime security is widely recognised. If noble Lords opposite do not believe that landlords are deterred from letting by the security provisions of the Rent Acts, I would draw their attention to a report recently agreed by the housing committee of Brent Council—and nobody would suggest that was in any way a Conservative-inclined council which says:
"Many properties in the borough are not being used because owners do not want to become
932
involved in management problems as landlords. Rightly or wrongly, some fear the security of tenure provisions of the Rent Act".
They are therefore proposing to use a scheme under which owners of properties who let to Brent can be guaranteed vacant possession when they want on a certain basis, and that is an interesting thought in itself. The fact is that they recognise the reality of the matter, and I do not think any noble Lord would quarrel with that basic position.
I would draw attention again to the shorthold provisions in the Bill. I suggest that a shorthold scheme limited in the way proposed by the amendment would not provide the sort of encouragement to landlords that we feel is needed and which is recognised even by those who perhaps have other doubts. The problem exists, and we return to the question: what would be likely to make it workable and likely to make it succeed? We believe that if the amendment were carried and it could apply only to vacant property, it would never really get off the ground.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to support the Government on this amendment. May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that if this amendment were carried and an owner-occupier were living in his house at the time that this part of the Act came into force, if he were subsequently posted abroad on a three-year contract and if he wanted to let his house on a shorthold tenancy while he was abroad, he could not do so? So if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, reflects upon that perhaps he would think again about pressing the amendment.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have said. I think I probably know the Conservative manifesto better than the noble Lord himself. He doubted whether what I said was accurate. Perhaps I might read him the actual words. This is how the copywriter put it:
"There are now hundreds of thousands of empty properties in Britain which are not let because the owners are deterred by legislation. We intend to introduce a new system of shorthold tenure which will allow short fixed-term lettings of these properties, free of the most discouraging conditions of the present law. The provision will not, of course"—

933
I like the "of course"—
"affect the position of existing tenants".
Lord BELLWIN: Will the noble Lord give way? I understand that is probably the only way I can properly speak on this. I am sure that is right, but it is not really the entire point. What that says is so, but it does not exclude our going further. It says, "Yes, for those premises we must give the opportunity for them to be converted into shorthold", but it does not say anywhere there that we should limit the shorthold experiment, if that is what it is, only to those. I would submit that is not so.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it depends how one interprets the wording, but I should not like to ask the Conservative Party to adhere to their manifesto any more than any other political party. I have noted what the noble Lord has said. I am disappointed that the Government are going so fast. I think it would be much better if they had brought in this experiment in a restricted way, but in view of the fact that they will not meet me I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 38, line 20, at end insert—
("(6) If at the end of the shorthold term the landlord intends to continue letting under the protected shorthold provisions of this Act he shall give notice of that intention in writing, to the tenant, not later than three months prior to the expiry date of the shorthold term (or any continuous period arising thereof), and shall, in that notice, offer a further term, of not less than one year, to the tenant. Upon receipt of such a notice the tenant shall reply, in writing, not later than two months prior to the expiry date of the shorthold term, clearly stating whether or not he wishes to take up an option to renew the tenancy for a further term. If the tenant thus indicates his intention to exercise an option for a further term the landlord shall offer a further term by serving a valid notice under section 51(1)(b) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is drafted somewhat differently from the one that I first moved on Committee. It is to give existing shorthold tenants a right of first refusal if, at the end of a shorthold period, their landlord decides to re-let the dwelling
934
for a further period. This again—and I know the Minister likes being reminded of this all the time—was another of the safeguards in one of the original Brandon Rhys Williams Bills, and it is another safeguard that we feel is absolutely essential if shorthold is to work and is to be fair all round. It is a basic safeguard for the tenant, and this was seen, and we see it, as an essential element.
Originally the Government did give pledges that they would go along similar lines. John Stanley, speaking in July 1979, said:
"We are being careful to ensure that the arrangements at the end of a shorthold term provide no incentive for a landlord to regain possession if he wishes to continue letting".
In other words, if the landlord wants merely to swap one tenant for another then he would not be entitled to vacant possession. He continued:
"In the right approach the landlord would be entitled to vacant possession at the end of it"—
that is, the shorthold term—
"unless he wanted to put in a different tenant".
So therefore the Government themselves, earlier on, were thinking along these lines. However, the Government have not honoured this pledge. The argument for omitting this safeguard that was advanced in another place by the Minister was that they would not want to force a landlord to continue letting to a tenant whom the landlord did not like or want.
Were it a question of a residential landlord letting to somebody in his own home, then I think one could argue that this certainly has some force. One has got to accept the question of the close relationship. But tenants of resident landlords do not enjoy full Rent Act protection and their landlords can already gain possession if they wish, with a tenant being able to get only a very limited stay of execution if the rent tribunal or court feel it reasonable to give such a stay of execution. Equally, if the tenant fails to abide by his tenancy conditions, does not pay the rent or causes a nuisance, the landlord, even if he does not live in the same building, even if he is not a resident landlord, can obtain possession. But what the Government appear to want, however, is another ground for possession which non-resident landlords who choose to let on shorthold may adopt; that is, to be able to say, "I do not like you" or

935
"I want to change; therefore you must leave".
Even worse, the absence of a right of first refusal is not only unfair to the tenant. We have heard such a lot about people having accommodation and feeling that they have a home; but it is no good their having a home unless they feel there is some security about it. The absence of a right of first refusal does leave the door open to unscrupulous landlords. It is agreed—the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has put it extremely well on several occasions—that there is a minority of landlords who do behave badly. I think he said this afternoon that our job in legislation is to protect the good and not the bad. So it does leave the door open for the unscrupulous landlord to demand illegal premiums or a higher rent as a condition of allowing the tenant to stay. He will not even have to give the tenant another period as a shorthold tenant but can leave him under threat of eviction if the tenant does not make the extra payments demanded, or if he tries to go to the rent office or tries to take any action in his own defence.
I hope that the Minister will not try once again to dismiss this by saying that premiums are illegal. As we pointed out repeatedly on Committee and during Report, where there is a shortage of accommodation the door is open to all sorts of undesirable practices; and I am afraid, whether they are illegal or not, they do take place, because the tenant is often put in a position of being a willing party and really conniving at the offence himself. There is absolutely no doubt that if the amendment is not accepted then there will be exploitation of some tenants and the charging of illegal premiums as the price for preventing eviction. But this amendment provides a safeguard against such practices. It also provides an incentive to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent regularly and cause no nuisance or offence, because it gives them the first option to remain as tenants and to keep their homes if the landlord intends to re-let.
This in no way ties the hands of landlords who do not wish to go on letting. They can still obtain possession when the shorthold comes to an end. Nor does it prevent the landlord from evicting the
936
bad tenant who fails to pay his rent. It does seem to me to be an eminently sensible amendment. It also seems to me to be a compassionate one, because it is going to save so many tenants the terrible heartache of not knowing what is going to happen to them when their shorthold lease comes to an end. I have covered all the points which would apply only where the landlord was a resident landlord, and it seems to me that in the Government's own interests, in making the shorthold policy a success, they should accept this amendment. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I speak very briefly on this amendment? I repeat that I want short-holds to be a successful experiment. The problem in the private rented sector is in trying to strike a balance between the advantages to the landlord and the advantages to the tenant. From my experience I suspect that under the old rent Acts the balance in regard to statutory tenancies, and tenancies during the inter-war years, was very much in favour of the tenant. We have heard of, and read, many stories about the difficulties of landlords not only in regard to making a living from the rents that they receive but also in losing a considerable amount of money. Obviously in that respect the balance was too much on the tenant's side.
I believe that the danger is that if we do not accept the amendment, in the short-hold field the balance will be too much on the landlord's side. I should not want a shorthold tenant to have the first refusal of a second term if he or she had been a bad tenant within the terms of the tenancy agreement or the normally accepted rules about obeying tenants' covenants, paying rent, and so on. On the other hand, I should not want the kind of things to which the noble Baroness referred to happen to a normally behaved, straightforward tenant, who would know that he was in a position in which he had absolutely no safeguard whatsoever, no matter how well behaved he was, or how reasonably and rationally he conducted himself as a tenant. If a tenant had a landlord who took a dislike to him, or who thought that he might receive a higher rent from someone else, such a tenant would have absolutely no protection in regard to

937
what during the period of the shorthold tenancy had become his home. This is a modest, humane, amendment which the Government might accept so as to encourage those of us who want the concept of shorthold to succeed.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am not terribly keen on this amendment for the following reason. In practice most landlords are only too happy to retain a good tenant, or even an average tenant, because the problems involved in switching tenancies are considerable. The trouble is that there are many ways in which a tenant can be a bad tenant without specifically breaking the terms of his tenancy agreement. Therein lies the difficulty. However, if acceptance of the amendment would lead to bipartisan agreement on shortholds, then I believe that, despite my misgivings, it would be worth accepting.
Lord BELLWIN: I do not think that there is much likelihood of that, my Lords, but may I say straightaway that as I understand it, the intention of the amendment is to give the sitting short-hold tenant the right of first refusal to a further term if the landlord intends to go on letting beyond the end of the short-hold term. This is a proposal which the Government examined very carefully when framing their shorthold proposals, but it is much less simple than it looks. We believe that it would be extremely difficult to operate in practice. Furthermore, we do not think that as a matter of policy it is on balance desirable, as I shall try to explain.
The first point is the question of practicability. The amendment requires the landlord to serve a written notice on the tenant, offering him a further term, at least three months before the end of the shorthold. It requires the tenant to take up that offer at least two months before the end of the term. That may be just workable so far as it goes. However, the amendment says nothing about what is to happen if the landlord does not serve this notice. What is the tenant to do then? What will happen if the tenant leaves, and then finds that the landlord has let to someone else when he had a statutory right to first refusal? The amendment does not resolve the problem of which tenant should take precedence in those circumstances; nor does it specify
938
the terms on which the landlord has to offer the further term. What happens if the landlord introduces new conditions? How is the tenant to know whether a new offer is a valid one? What opportunity does the tenant have to challenge the landlord's offer? Those are some of the difficulties that we see with an offer of first refusal that have convinced us that it would be impracticable.
We also believe that such a provision would be undesirable because there would need to be a penalty against landlords who did not offer their tenants a further term. The amendment does not make any attempt to spell out what the penalty would be, but the provision would have no force at all without some penalty for landlords who failed to comply with it. The penalty suggested by the Opposition in another place was that a landlord who is not prepared to go on letting must be required to keep the property empty for a specified period. I can describe that only as involving an awful waste of housing resources. If a landlord wants to go on letting, but does not want to go on letting to the same tenant, does it make sense that he should have to keep the property empty for six months or more? That does not help either the landlord or the tenant. There is a further point. If there is a penalty provision that the property must be kept empty, who is to enforce it? That would need a special check each time a shorthold tenancy changed hands.
Those are the reasons why we are against a statutory right to first refusal, but we believe that tenants who stay on beyond the original shorthold term should have a reasonable measure of security. That is why the Bill was amended by the Government in another place, so that tenants who stay on beyond the end of the shorthold term, with the landlord's agreement or acquiescence, should have a full year's security under shorthold. That, I believe, is both workable and fair.
The noble Baroness quoted what the Minister had said in a speech, in which he said that there would be no incentive to landlords to get rid of tenants at the end of the shorthold. But that is not the same as forcing the landlord to keep on the tenant against the landlord's will. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, asked what happens if a landlord dislikes

939
a particular tenant? The whole basic principle of shorthold is that it should be an encouragement to landlords to bring new lettings on to the market. What kind of incentive would it be to landlords to do that if they knew that when the previously agreed term of tenancy was at an end, subject to the agreed procedures as to notice, they could not have what the very concept of shorthold sets out to provide; namely, the opportunity to end the tenancy? If that is not available, then shorthold has no meaning; there is no purpose at all in shorthold.
I see what is being attempted, and I sympathise with the motivation behind it. Nevertheless, if the amendment were passed, shorthold could not succeed, because no one would then undertake to bring new lettings on to the market, knowing that at the end of an agreed contracted period he could not, for whatever reason he may decide upon, say that the tenancy was at its end, which is his prerogative. The whole purpose is to make new accommodation—I do not mean that in the sense of new buildings, but rather in the sense of new lettings—available for private renting, where at present it does not exist.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must say that the Minister's arguments are in the category of being very "iffy": if this, or if not; the amendment does not specify this, that, or the other. That was on the practical side. I would say only that if the Government's heart and head were in the right place in regard to this matter, it could all be worked out. The Minister has put up a great many obstacles, saying that this and that are not included in the amendment, and that this and that cannot be done. Anything can be done if one wants to do it. If the Government really wanted to accept the principle here, then with all the talent at their disposal—I see much of it assembled in the officials' box—they could bring forward an amendment to meet all the points and the obstacles that they have raised.
On the question of the proposal being undesirable, I cannot believe that the Minister has not considered the point that when a provision is passed into law and becomes practice, people will accept it. If somebody lets on a shorthold and knows that at the end of the period,
940
if they are going to relet, they will have to relet to the same tenant, unless the tenant has put himself into the position of being an undesirable tenant, then they will accept this as the practice and will do so. They will continue to do this because they are not resident landlords and, as I explained before, the tenants have paid their rent and have not become nuisances.
The main reason why landlords are reluctant to let—and this is the Government's own submission, through the Ministers—is, they say, because they cannot regain vacant possession so that they can sell. But under our proposal the right of a landlord to terminate the tenancy at the end of the shorthold tenure and then obtain vacant possession and sell is not affected. That is really what it is all about. But what I still do not understand is this—unless there is some extraordinary pressure on the Government, which I do not like the thought or the sound of, my Lords. They are bringing this in, and in dealing with shortholds they are making it quite clear that they are from a minimum of one year to a maximum of five years, so there is a period of time for the landlord. But if the landlord does not want vacant possession, why do they not then come along—I am asking this as a rhetorical question, because we have had the debate before—and say, "Yes, there is a great deal of sense in this; there are ways in which we can make it work; at least we can try it out, because we will be giving security to the tenant, and when the landlord wants his house or flat back with vacant possession to sell it he will still be able to have it"?
This is one of the worst points about shorthold, because it gives maximum insecurity to the tenant and really, I think, creates a great deal of trouble and anguish (I have used that word many times in relation to this Bill, and I use it again) besides laying it open to illegal premiums and all sorts of practices. This is the sort of thing that encourages the holiday lettings and licences, and the other loopholes we have been trying to stop. However, we have had this debate before—I think this is probably the third or fourth time—so I will not say any more on it except that I am pressing it to a Division.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 102.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gosford, E.

Peart, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Gregson, L.

Banks, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

Bowden, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Collison, L

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

David, B.

Leonard, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McNair, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Melchett, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Mountevans, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Godber of Willington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Gormanston, V.

Avon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Moyne, L.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Barnby, L.

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

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, JL.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Boardman, L.

Harvington, L.

Pender, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Henley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hertford, M.

Redmayne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caithness, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharples, B.

Colwyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Craigavon, V.

Kimberley, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Denham, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Swansea, L.

Digby, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trenchard, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dulverton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaizey, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Marley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 55 [Orders for possession]:
6.51 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 40, line 8, at end insert—
(3) For the purposes of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 no person shall be treated as having become homeless intentionally or become threatened with homelessness intentionally by reason of his having accepted a protected shorthold tenancy of any premises and thereafter having been required to give up possession thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this amendment in the same words at Committee stage of the Bill. I put it down to move on Report stage but, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, we reached these amendments so late that it seemed better not to move it at the time. This amendment is even more important now since the Government's heart has not been softened by the pleas made on previous amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Therefore, the extent of shortholds, and therefore of shorthold tenants, is very much larger than it would have been had those amendments been accepted.
As I have said, I should like to see short-holds having a fair trial. This is not a technical amendment because it is one that could be, can be, and almost certainly would be, extremely important to a large number of shorthold tenants, since as things stand at the moment, if a tenant takes a shorthold tenancy he is deemed to know that that shorthold tenancy is going to come to an end and he is going to have to leave the dwelling in which he finds himself. Therefore, it is arguable that he is thereby rendering himself deliberately homeless and thereby takes himself outside the protection of the Homeless Persons Act.
It might, therefore, happen that a perfectly straightforward tenant who had taken a shorthold tenancy, has not misbehaved himself, has not tried to take advantage of the system to get a council house, has behaved perfectly correctly just as the Government would want him to behave, has been a model shorthold tenant in fact, has been exactly the kind of person that the Government are claiming they seek to help, might find at the end of his term that he leaves the tenancy because he has to, there is no further chance for
944
him to renew the tenancy, goes to the local authority, asks for a council house under the Homeless Persons Act and they say: "We are sorry; you knew when your tenancy came to an end it would not he renewed. Therefore you have made yourself deliberately homeless; therefore you cannot use the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act".
I know the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, thinks this is far-fetched and a figment of the rather far-stretching imagination of lawyers, but, as Lord Strabolgi said in the debate on the Committee stage, there has been a decision in the Court of Appeal recently—the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, mentioned it too—where a person who had an out-of-season letting was found to have made himself deliberately homeless and not therefore able to benefit from the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.
I am not impressed by the arguments in reply at Committee stage, of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that my amendment would cast doubt on the status of all tenants of all kinds who are at the moment outside the protection of the Rent Act. We are dealing with a Housing Bill, and a section of the Housing Bill which deals with shortholds, and I have therefore to deal with the situation that arises under a shorthold tenancy. It introduces—I do not think there can be any argument about this at least—a completely novel type of very insecure tenure, and I think the Government and your Lordships should be particularly concerned about the future of people who become tenants under this system without perhaps fully realising the possible result that might overtake them. If the noble Lord can give me and your Lordships an assurance that this type of tenant would not be outside the protection of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, then I would be quite happy to withdraw this amendment, but I am certainly not happy with the half-hearted and somewhat reluctant semi-assurances that I got at Committee stage.
I can say this as my final word. I am talking about the person who deliberately takes a shorthold tenancy in order that he can then slip through a loophole and force the local council to give him a tenancy, which was argued against me at Committee stage. I am talking about the

945
kind of person that the proposed legislation seeks to give an opportunity of having a shorthold tenancy. They are entitled, since the Government have not been willing to accept any of the reasoned amendments put forward, to limit the extent of shorthold. In view of the broad concept of shorthold tenancy, the Government should give these assurances.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I hope the Government will take this amendment very seriously and not by any manner or means brush it aside. When Mr. Ross brought in the Act of 1977, shorthold was not envisaged; it is something that has come up since then. Also, during the course of a shorthold tenancy which could be as long as five years, a person's circumstances may change completely; children may be horn; all sorts of things may happen. I do think this is an important and very serious amendment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, in his amendment. I was, as I mentioned before, Minister in the Department when the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill went through. I remember making the point during the passage of the Bill that the number of intentionally homeless was not expected to be large. However, as was not to be unexpected, some local authorities have interpreted this provision in a much wider manner than was envisaged—indeed, there has been a recent court case on it which I will not go into now because we have discussed it before—and classify as "intentionally homeless" people who took short-term holiday lettings and were subsequently evicted and made homeless. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that it must be made clear that people who do take shorthold lettings cannot subsequently be judged intentionally homeless and refused permanent housing by a vocal authority solely on the grounds that they have taken a shorthold letting. I should have thought that the Government would welcome this amendment, because it protects people who wish to take a short-hold tenancy but may be rather worried and deterred from doing so because they fear that at the end of their tenancy they will be refused housing by the local authority.
946
I think the noble Lord, Lord Evans, covered this matter so extremely well and clearly that there is nothing more I can add, except that I support him.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I hope that it will not be felt because I deal with this perhaps more shortly than I have with other amendments on shortholds that we take it any less seriously. Indeed, I entirely take the point that my noble friend Lord Hylton made as to that. As to the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that he found my responses in Committee on this to be, I think he said, very halfhearted, and that I did not give him the assurance he wanted, I am not usually half-hearted about that which I say. In view of the other comments which have been made about what I have said over the course of the Bill, I would have thought that was one of the few suggestions that might have been made. However, I take it in the spirit in which I am sure it was meant.
Of course I have considered very carefully what was said in the discussion on this amendment during Committee stage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I looked very carefully at that which might well come back again; and he did intimate then that he might do just that which he has now done. I must tell noble Lords that I remain of the view that no special provisions for shortholds are needed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. The main reason for this is that shorthold is not the only type of letting where tenants do not have lifetime security. The Homeless Persons Act makes no special provisions for these kinds of lettings, and as I said in Committee their status under the Act would be called into question if special provisions were to be made for shorthold.
We have considered the judgment in the Court of Appeal case, Dyson v. Kerrier District Council, reported in The Times on 1st July. As I said in Committee, this judgment depended very much on the circumstances of the case. It would be quite wrong to infer from that case that anyone who took a winter let or a shorthold and was required to give up possession at the end of the term would thereby be judged to have made himself intentionally homeless. What the case shows is that what happened before a short-term

947
letting was taken up may also be relevant to the question of intentional homelessness.
I should like to refer back to what my noble friend Lord Sandford said in Committee. He said that the view of the Association of District Councils was that no amendment should be made on this point so that local authorities can continue to exercise their discretion as to what has occurred, whether it is a case of abuse or a case of hardship. This is also the Government's view. Furthermore, your Lordships will also know that there is a review of the 1977 Act in progress at the present time. In saying that, I do not want to give the impression that, as regards the proposals in this amendment, we necessarily consider that any change is desirable. But the fact is that this Act is being looked at very carefully indeed, together with all its implications. While doing that, we will certainly be considering whether shorthold would have the kind of adverse effects that the noble Lord fears. Finally, may I assure your Lordships that the point about local authority policies toward people who become homeless on leaving winter lets—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi) —is also being considered actively in the review of the Homeless Persons Act. With those remarks and the assurance I have given about the review, the noble Lord perhaps may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I am not at all happy about this position. With great respect, it is all very well for the noble Lord to say that this does not apply to other lettings outside the Rent Acts, the unprotected lettings. I concede that it does not. But I happen to be dealing in this amendment with shorthold tenancies and not with the other types of tenancies. Had I been here at the time they were dealt with, no doubt I would have been moving similar amendments—possibly with greater success and support from the Government Benches than I am receiving now.
The second point is that if the Government accept this amendment, or if we force it to a Division and show that there is strong feeling here, it may encourage the Government, the legislators and those advising them to give that kind
948
of protection to lettings outside the Rent Acts, because it seems to me to be a very big loophole for two reasons. One, that you have got now a much broader spectrum of possible shorthold tenants because the Government have not accepted the amendment and, secondly, that there is presumably going to be a great encouragement among landlords to use this form of shorthold tenancies. I would have thought that it would have been helpful to the Government and to landlords who wanted to use this provision that their tenants would not be deterred from applying for shorthold tenancies because of their uncertainty about their position at the end of their shorthold tenancy. If they could have an assurance from (if you like) the mouths of the Government or from this Bill that they would not be declared deliberately homeless, it might influence a much larger number of people to apply to become short-hold tenants. I think that the Government's refusal to accept this is shortsighted.
The third and final reason is that from my experience in local government I am very unhappy about the way many local authorities interpret the deliberate homeless provisions of the Homeless Persons Act. I thought that, in a sense, what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said in Committee was rather chilling. Some local authorities obviously do not want an amendment like this, because many local authorities dislike intensely the Homeless Persons Act. They find it a nuisance and an inconvenience from a purely bureaucratic and administrative point of view. Therefore, I think we are only aiding and abetting those authorities that take an inhumane interpretation of the Act and we are not encouraging, by the means of giving this protecton, those people taking up shorthold tenancies—which the Government think is going to be a big way of revising the private-rented market. Therefore, I can only seek to divide the House to find out whether I can get support for what I think is a very reasonable amendment.
7.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gosford, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Raglan, L.

Baker, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.[Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bernstein, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Birk, B.

Hylton, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

Bowden, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leonard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chitnis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

de Clifford, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Melchett, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milverton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Moyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Auckland, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Avon, E.

Gormanston, V.

Norfolk, D.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, B.

Barnby, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Bellwin, L.

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

Orr-Ewing, L.

Belstead, L.

Pender, L.

Boardman, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Harvington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hertford, M.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Selkirk, E.

Caithness, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sharples, B.

Chelwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Trenchard, V.

Digby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaizey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elton, L.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Morris, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Third Reading of this Bill be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPANIES (DIRECTORS' REPORT) (EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS) REGULATIONS 1980
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the passage in another place of the last Companies Bill the Government gave

951
an undertaking that they would use the powers in what is now Section 81 of the Companies Act 1980 to make regulations requiring disclosure by companies in their directors' reports of information concerning their policy in respect of the employment of disabled persons. The Government also said that they would use the period between Report and bringing forward the regulations to consult representative organisations concerned about the content of the regulations. Consultations have been held with, among others, the Manpower Services Commission, the National Advisory Council for the Employment of Disabled People, the Confederation of British Industry, the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies and the Law Society. The Government are grateful for the advice received from all these bodies, which the Government have endeavoured to take into account in framing these regulations.
Companies will in future be required to disclose in their annual reports their policies towards employing disabled persons, covering such matters as recruitment, training and career development. Their policies in this respect will be open to public scrutiny and we believe that this will provide valuable support to other statutory provisions concerning the disabled, and contribute to the improvement of the employment prospects of disabled people.
The regulations require disclosure not only of the policies that apply when the company considers applications for employment from disabled persons, but also of what policies operate for the training, career development and promotion of disabled employees including those who become disabled while in the employment of the company. Thus all persons about to be employed or already employed by the company are catered for.
Before dealing with the individual regulations, I should explain that Section 454 of the Companies Act 1948, as amended by Section 81 of the Companies Act 1980, empowers the Secretary of State for Trade, by regulations made by statutory instrument, to alter or add to the requirements of the 1948 Act for disclosure of information in the directors' report which is required to be attached to the annual balance sheet of a company, laid
952
I before the company in general meeting and delivered to the registrar of companies where it is placed on the public file. Thus the information will relate to the financial year covered by that director's report.
Turning to the regulations, Regulation I is conventional. It states the title of the regulations and states that they shall come into operation on 1st September 1980. That is to say that the regulations apply to directors' reports prepared for financial years which begin on or after 1st September 1980.
Regulation 2 defines the terms used in the regulations. The Companies Act 1948 is commonly referred to as "the Act" in that it is the principal Act. The second paragraph of Regulation 2 defines a directors' report as that report which is required to be attached to the annual balance sheet of a company. The third paragraph provides that the use of the word "employment" in the regulations refers to employment to work in the United Kingdom; this is in line with Section 18(6) of the Companies Act 1967 which has the effect of not requiring companies to take into account employees working wholly or mainly abroad in calculating the average number of employees of a company and their aggregate remuneration. I hope that the House will agree that it is sensible for these regulations to apply to policies in the United Kingdom and not in respect of other countries where the statutory requirements and practice may be very different.
The fourth paragraph of Regulation 2 defines "disabled person". For the purpose of these regulations, the definition of "disabled person" will be the same as that used in Section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. This is wider than that used in Section 6 of that Act which deals with disabled persons who are registered as disabled. Thus directors will be required to report on their policies for all disabled persons, whether they are registered as such or not. This is a point to which I understand that organisations consulted attach particular importance, and we can understand that. In addition to restating the operative date of the regulations, Regulation 3 states the size of a company that the regulations apply to. The Government have considered this matter very carefully indeed

953
and have concluded that the regulations should apply to companies who employ more than 250 people. There are a number of reasons why we have come to this conclusion. First, the statutory duty on employers is to employ at least 3 per cent. registered disabled persons. Hence, any lower level than 250 would require many companies to make statutory policy statements in relation to a very small number of employees indeed and would result in a disproportionate burden on small companies. It is in any event particularly in companies employing more than 250 employees that a clear and distinct policy on the employment of disabled persons is most likely to be evolved. The Government recognise fully the desirability of small companies doing as much as possible for disabled persons and I hope their policies, whether published or not, will similarly reflect good practice in this matter.
Your Lordships will note that there are no provisions for the application of the regulations to groups. This is intentional; the regulations apply to all individual companies, whether in a group or not, where they meet the relevant size criteria. Companies with subsidiaries are not required to report on the group as a whole. In many cases there will not be a total group policy towards disabled persons, indeed such an overall policy could well be unpractical.
Secondly, from the technical point of view, subsidiaries often have differing financial years to their fellow subsidiaries and the present company; it could thus be very difficult to draw up an overall statement for a given financial year. Regulations made under the Companies Acts can apply only to the corporate sector. The Department of Employment will, however, be drawing the regulations to the attention of public sector employers, and I would expect the accounts of the nationalised industries to reflect on this point, as they do on others, the reporting requirements imposed on companies.
The rest of Regulation 3 deals with the manner in which the number of persons employed by the company is to be derived. This is the same method as that used in Section 18(3) of the Companies Act 1967, and will therefore be familiar to companies in the United Kingdom. Regulation 4 comes to the heart of the
954
matter. It deals with the details of the statement to be included in the directors' report. Regulation 4(a) requires a description of the company's policy for giving full and fair consideration to applications for employment made by disabled persons with regard to their particular aptitudes and abilities. Regulation 4(b) requires a statement of policies towards employees who have become disabled during the period in which they were working for the company, and Regulation 4(c) requires disclosure of the policy relating to the training career, development and promotion of disabled persons. I do not think I need to elaborate on these; I hope your Lordships will agree they are fairly straightforward and I understand that they reflect the views of those consulted.
The Government are confident that the provisions of these regulations will help to ensure that companies examine fully their responsibilities towards all their disabled employees, both existing and prospective, and will have a beneficial effect on the employment of disabled persons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th July, be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this draft statutory instrument, and may I say it was rather a delight to have an instrument of this kind which is so clearly set out in its terms that anyone unfamiliar with it would have no difficulty in understanding its purpose. For that, I am particularly grateful. I feel I should like to thank the Minister also for fulfilling an obligation and a promise made some time ago in producing this particular order. I notice that the 38th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has nothing to comment on, and presumably this means that they are satisfied with the order.
There are just two matters I should like to raise with the noble Lord, and if he is not in a position to deal with them tonight I shall be quite happy if he gives me the answers verbally at some time because I am loath, having been in a department myself, to put further burdens on departments in writing letters. Therefore I

955
should be quite content if I could be told verbally.
I notice that this requirement will be distributed and made known to firms employing 250 or more employees. As a matter of interest, how is this to be brought to the notice of such firms, of which there must be tens of thousands? Does it mean that distribution goes to every firm? If so, I am wondering whether there could be a note of some kind enclosed, drawing attention to the fact that if firms with less than 250 employees could employ one or more disabled people, that would help a group in our community who need the employment that is able to be offered.
Among other matters, I notice that the list of organisations consulted before the instrument was drawn up was a pretty comprehensive one, and I know that one of the organisations represents about 40 organisations; but I was a little intrigued to see that the accountants and the Law Society were consulted. I am wondering why, and if I could know the reason at some later date I should be grateful. We have nothing but praise for the order and we certainly give it our unqualified support.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I feel that from all parts of the House there will be a welcome for the intention behind these regulations, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for presenting them so clearly. But I am bound to say that, while I am very strongly in favour of what the Government are trying to do, I am not entirely happy about the way in which the regulations have been drafted. I am sure that we are not going to seek to annul them, but perhaps it will be in order for me to outline briefly some of my worries, and the noble Lord may have comments to make.
First, I am a little surprised at the decision that the way to present this information is in the directors' report. I was looking into what was said when this matter was discussed in another place, and it is interesting to see that the Minister, at column 1238 of Hansard for 26th February, said that,
"no useful purpose would be served by introducing legislation requiring the inclusion of detailed
956
employment and other non-financial information in company accounts".
I do not object to the Government changing their mind. But I was wondering what made them change their minds in this respect, because I should have thought it was not a very useful place to put this information. Once these regulations are established there will be a tendency for people to ask for all kinds of other information to be put into the directors' report until, in the end, the main purpose of the report—which is to report on the financial position of the company—will be completely submerged in other information.
If I may now turn to the proposals themselves, the introductory paragraph of Regulation 4 refers to a,
"statement describing such policy as the company has applied during the financial year"
in respect of these matters. I tried to put myself in the position of the director of a fairly small company, which falls within the ambit of these regulations, and wondered what I would say, if I had a free hand in doing what I wanted to do, after consultation with the employees; and I am sorry that there is no reference in the regulations to the desirability and, indeed, the necessity of these arrangements being discussed with the employees. I would say that my policy in relation to these matters is to do everything I can for anybody who is in this unfortunate position, and not much more than that, because what can be done for A, B or C will differ entirely, according to indvidual circumstances. It would be quite dangerous to put any detailed policy in a statement of this kind.
Let us suppose that a man has been working in a company for 15 or 20 years and has the misfortune to lose an arm in a railway accident, I am sure that we would do everything possible to try to find him a job where he could continue to work with that disability. At the same time, there might be a young man or a young woman who had been just a year with the company and, having driven rather rashly on holiday, came back with a broken arm. Would I have the same obligation to that person as I would to the first case? That is the kind of example that makes me feel it would be almost impossible to set out a policy, except in the most general terms, and I wonder whether that would perform any function at all.

957
Turning to paragraph (a) of Regulation 4, there will be people applying for jobs who have various disabilities, but my information is that many companies find it difficult to recruit their 3 per cent. of disabled people. I should not have thought there would be many people who would not be seeking to find which job in the organisation could be done by any person applying. Again, I should have thought the policy would be that we do our best. I have already mentioned what would he the appropriate arrangements, which seem to me to depend very much on the circumstances of the case.
My only other point is about the training of people who have been engaged as disabled persons. One meets them in many organisations when one does business with them. They have usually been found a job where their disability can be overcome, and I do not know what is in view here in talking about training or development. If I had engaged a man with only one arm, I would find him a job as a lift attendant. I cannot see what development or training he could have. If it is training to enable him to do a different job, then, apparently, the employer has the responsibility of training him, only to lose him later because, when he can do the different job, that job may not be available in the organisation for which he is working. If he was well looked after in the job he was doing, it would be raising his hopes unduly to suggest that training would lead to promotion or development.
Those are the points that have worried me a little. There is only one other matter which I should like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the nationalised industries and hoped that they would adopt similar procedures. I am wondering whether Government departments could also be brought into that category. I think that this point was raised by my noble friend Lord Banks in an amendment on the Health Services Bill. I hope that Government departments, as well as nationalised industries, will apply their minds to this problem of what can be done to improve the chances of disabled people.
7.38 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should first like to thank both the noble Lord,
958
Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for their generous words and for their general welcome of these regulations. To deal with some of the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I am flattered and grateful that he found my remarks clear. That was more due to the drafting of the regulations and to the speech that was prepared for me; if the noble Lord found my remarks clear, that was far more due to the department than to my own talents, and I shall pass on the noble Lord's thanks to the department. I am also glad that the noble Lord is with us in fulfilling a promise that was made by the Government to deal with the employment of disabled persons.
The noble Lord gave me some prior notice of both of his questions. As to why the disclosure of information is limited to 250 or more persons in a company or a department, we believe that there are good reasons for this. I understand that there is an infinitesimal number of concerns employing more than 250 persons which are not bodies corporate. This means that in the vast majority of cases we are dealing with bodies corporate which will have to produce a balance sheet and, indeed, a directors' report, in which their policies regarding the employment of disabled persons will be clearly stated.
If we took the level to be the same as that requiring disclosure to trade unions under the present Employment Protection Act—that is 100—or if we took the level at which employers are required to take a DP quota—that is 20—then we think that we should find that companies would have to disclose their policies for one, two or three employees. We think that this is impracticable. It would be a very severe burden on small companies who might well not have the relevant personnel directors. Most of it might be run by one man or perhaps by two people, and it might be a little impracticable for them. However, we envisage that there will be widespread publicity through the press, the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade, and also through other legal and accountancy publications and journals that this will be a statutory requirement and is to be added to the directors' report of a company. We think that the mechanism for informing company secretaries who will be drawing

959
up the directors' reports is adequate. However, I undertake that we shall look into any avenues which have not been explored if we think that the current channels of communication are in any way lacking. We believe, though, that they are satisfactory. Nevertheless, we will check.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, related to the two bodies which were involved in the consultations—the Consultative Council for Accountancy Bodies and the Law Society. In the case of the first body, I understand that the measure with which we are dealing is incoprorated in the Companies Act. As it concerns extensively auditors, auditors' reports, directors and balance sheets, it was thought fit that the accountancy bodies should give their opinion on how these matters of policy should be drafted. The Law Society are also concerned, because one has to get the language right in order to give the relevant information.
In this connection I come back to the point which is always raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon; namely, that of drafting. The Law Society were consulted with this point in mind and we hope that they have done a reasonable job. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who traditionally does his homework on all measures, expressed mild dissatisfaction with some aspects of the drafting. I think I heard him correctly and I see that he is nodding his assent. The noble Viscount raised one point about the directors' report.
We agree entirely with the general principles which the noble Viscount put forward. We believe that this policy statement which we intend to incorporate in the directors' report will not, and need not, clutter up any accounts. There has been general agreement on all sides of this House and in another place in favour of a policy statement of this type being incorporated where we believe that it should be incorporated; namely, in the directors' report. The annual accounts and the directors' report, which are published every year by companies, are a convenient place for the annual statement of this policy.
Powers exist under the Companies Act and the various other Acts which I have mentioned in my remarks concerning
960
the regulations to require information of this type—and specifically the regulations which I have raised tonight—to be included in the directors' report. We think that this is the relevant and the best vehicle for all the bodies which were consulted in framing these regulations to become aware of the policies for the employment of disabled persons throughout the corporate sector.
Secondly, the noble Viscount raised the difficulty about finding the statutory number of disabled persons who must be employed by a company. I think the noble Viscount framed the likely remarks of directors as, "We are doing our best", but I believe that the directors would frame their remarks a trifle more narrowly than that. However, may I stress that the proposed regulations are to ensure that directors give some account of their policy regarding disabled persons. As I pointed out in my remarks, there are registered disabled persons and also disabled persons who, for various reasons, are not registered under the auspices of the 1944 Act. They too, we believe, merit special consideration. That is why the regulation is to be a little wider than the very narrow definition of 3 per cent.
I think that the noble Viscount was worried about discussing policy with employees. We think that this is desirable but the noble Viscount is worried that policy might not be discussed with employees. However, the Secretary of State has no power to require companies to discuss this or any other matter with their employees. Companies employing more than 250 persons will be fairly substantial concerns. If the regulations are incorporated into the Companies Act, we believe that there will be a de minimis level of employee discussion and participation as to employing disabled persons.
One of the methods for companies to be able to employ disabled persons in various sectors of their concerns would be through existing employees bringing to the notice of their employee representatives the fact, which could be passed on to the personnel department, that they knew people who were disabled and who could do a good job. In general, companies would welcome such information, were it to be given. This is part of the employee participation which goes on extra-legally—at the moment it is not statutorily required

961
—and I believe that that point could be taken care of. I see that the noble Viscount has a point to make.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I intervene merely because something which the noble Lord said made me think that I must have expressed myself very badly. He seemed to think that I was worried about there being discussions with employees. I was worried about there not being discussions with employees.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the lack of clarity was on my side, and I apologise. It was certainly in my mind that the noble Viscount was worried about the lack of discussion. I hope that I said that we do not think there is anything that we can enact by statute to enforce discussion between employees and employers on this or any other special subject. We hope that good companies of a respectable size, which we are dealing with tonight, will listen to and discuss any opportunities which should arise with their employees. I am sure that if companies have to publish —as they will have to do—what they have done and their possible programme for the employment of disabled persons, they will take this into account and will discuss it, possibly informally, with their employees. With that, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.49 to 8 p.m.]

HOUSING BILL
Further considered on Third Reading.
Clause 60 [Applications for new registered rents and phasing of increases]:
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 42, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) Except in cases where an increase has not been registered in the preceding three years the Rent Office nor the Rent Tribunal may register a rent which increases the rent previously
962
registered by a sum the percentage of which exceeds the amount by which the Taxes and Prices Index has increased over the period since the rent was last registered.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I think that we are now on one of the most important sections of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite yet realises—and I am sure that he must have had quite a number of approaches on this matter—how terribly serious the position is for whose who are in flats and those who have been occupying homes for the last 30, 40 and in some cases 50 years. I speak from very long experience. Unless we move rapidly, we shall be allowing to be created—I would not say that we are creating—homelessness for hundreds of thousands of people in this country; because we are dealing with a situation which has placed the tenants, particularly in flats, in a position where they cannot possibly stay, in consequence of the fact that there is a speculators' market today, created by very ingenious people, who have cornered the property market and who are consequently placing, in particular elderly people, in that position. A lot has been said about the elderly people here. But, my Lords, I can go back to the time, before our particular party had created a different situation, when the very poor were able to exist by charity; the very rich were able to exist and they had their health looked after by their own means, but the poor middle man was in a terrible state because his resources were such as would not enable him to obtain the absolute necessities of life.
We are now going back to that position and that does not mean merely the former middle man; it means a very large section of the community who would probably be in that particular class, together with their fellow-men. I know that the noble Lord has consideration for the human side of this; it is not just a trivial matter. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will understand what I am driving at when I say that I have seen what happens to people who are so-called middle class, and today I have the greatest fear and I think I am justified in that fear when it comes to a question of housing these people. What is actually happening?
We had a Rent Act which was supposed to be a protective Act—to protect people. We increased the amount of the rateable

963
values. It does not protect them in the slightest today, because of what actually happens regarding speculators—and I am not speaking about the old type landlords and the many landlords who are (shall I say?) decent people who think about their tenants and who want to make a modest and a proper living from existing tenancies. But there are no such tenancies today in the speculators' field; they are not out for that at all. What they do is this. They go to rent tribunals who assess—and in many cases assess greater amounts than the rent officers had fixed, amounts which make it impossible for the tenants to remain in their flats or in their homes. This is not a trivial matter. It is a great pity that there are not more noble Lords present, because I am almost certain that this issue affects a very fair percentage of the Members of your Lordships' House.
What I am trying to do, with my colleagues, is to prevent an upsurge in this kind of speculation. The only way to do it (apart, of course, from protection of the tenants, which is extremely important) is by keeping rents within certain limits; and I consider it is our duty to do that. We did it with the leasehold system. We allowed leaseholders to buy their places—and mark you, my Lords, we are not helping the middle-class man to buy his place today. Not at all. We are not helping anybody who is just a leaseholder to buy his home in the private sector. I agree that in the public sector we are doing something to help—not that this Housing Bill will do anything to improve that help, but here we really have a problem which has to be solved. It has not only a human aspect to it but also a moral aspect.
Many of these speculators are still old landlords who have some kind of feeling for the tenants and who are obviously entitled to a fair rent, but these people create what I consider to be a scarcity value. No places can be rented because it does not pay the landlords. What they want to do is to purchase a place, raise the rents to such an extent that the tenants cannot remain, and then sell at enormous profits. How are we going to stop that? I do not say I am sufficiently full of (what shall I say?) prophecy to be able to do it entirely with any particular amendment. That is why today, subject to your Lordships' approval, I have put down two
964
alternatives. If your Lordships will permit me, I will speak about both, as they both relate to precisely the same situation, and are put down with a view to giving the Government an opportunity to say they will accept one or the other.
I just cannot understand for one moment why we do not stop this racket; because it is a racket; it is an unwholesome one. Many speculators come from abroad and have offices abroad; they do not pay tax, they fail entirely to make any contribution to the country in which they are speculating. I am going to make an appeal to the noble Lord. I do not think you can deny what I have said. I think you will agree with me—I hope you will—in saying that this is a problem which is created at the present time, a problem of a vicious nature, and one which is putting into the pockets of those who are speculating in property, and who wish to make fortunes out of it, vast sums of money, and at the same time it is reducing accommodation that is essential.
We talk about scarcity value. I cannot for the life of me understand the interpretation, including that of the courts, that was put upon this matter. If people speculate in property to such an extent that there is no property left to rent at a reasonable rent, that to me creates a scarcity value. I may be wrong, but I cannot see what the answer to that is. Scarcity value is created by these people.
All this takes me back many years to a time when we used to talk about the tenants and their rights. The tenant, let us understand, creates the value of the place and of the district. If he has been living there for any length of time, he has created its value; he has paid the rates. He has made the district a valuable district. He is the person who is entitled to be considered, as he was in the case of the Leasehold Reform Act; after a long struggle we managed to get it through. I was myself, one of these people. Thank the Lord I was able to find some other place—which cost a very nice packet, and in order to do it one has to save for very many years. You do not have to go any distance at all to a tenants' association, on whose behalf I also speak, to know what misery the present situation is causing, what distress it is causing. Consequently, I appeal to the noble Lord to give his assent to one or other of these amendments. If he has

965
some other method, by all means use that, but it is a little late in the day as far as this Bill is concerned.
I know he will probably say this is a matter for the Rent Act and all the rest of it. This is essentially a matter for the housing of people. The noble Lord said I was emotive. Of course, I am emotive; I cannot be otherwise than emotive on a subject of this description. You have to have a pretty hard heart not to be moved by the conditions that you find are facing people who come and talk to you. I am in a profession where they do so. I have acquired a very considerable amount of understanding of the man in the street, because when you are a Member of Parliament in another place you get it straight from the horse's mouth. All I can say is that if I do not succeed on this proposal, I shall feel myself to be a very poor advocate unable to put over a first-class cause. I have much pleasure in moving the first of these amendments. If the Government are not satisfied with the first, I will withdraw it and move the second.
8.16 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I propose to speak to both of these amendments, No. 19 and No. 21, because what I have to say really covers them both. I do not for a moment question the noble Lord being emotive on the subject. Why not, if one feels deeply about it? I think it is right that one should. If I sometimes speak the same way, I hope the noble Lord would feel similarly so far as I was concerned. There would be something strange about a debate in your Lordships' House on housing if the noble Lord, Lord Janner, were not to raise the subject which he is raising now. I understand the very great feeling he has about it. Indeed, he tabled very similar amendments to Clauses 60 and 61.
My Lords, both the amendments seek to set an index-linked ceiling on rent increases. It might be helpful to the noble Lord, and to the House, if I comment on both together, because, as I say, the arguments are similar in each case. I shall not criticise the drafting of the two amendments. The noble Lord probably realises that they are technically defective. Instead, I shall comment on the general principle of placing an index-linked ceiling on rent increases. Increases in fair rents over previous years have not on average
966
been particularly high. The last year for which we have full data is 1979. The increases made then in cases where the previous rent was registered three to four years ealier averaged 47 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole and 41 per cent. in Greater London. This compared with an increase of 47 per cent. in prices, 45 per cent. in earnings and 57 per cent. in the price of secondhand homes bought with a mortgage. So in the last three to four years on average fair rents registered have just about reflected general inflation over that period. If, however, we look instead at the last 10 years, fair rents have gone up 111 per cent. compared with 206 per cent. increase in prices, 258 per cent. increase in earnings and 297 per cent. increase in secondhand homes. So registered fair rents have lagged well behind inflation over the decade. Since 1975 the phasing of increases has meant an even greater lag in rents actually payable, to the extent that a landlord's rent return on vacant possession capital value may be running at no more than 2 to 3 per cent.
My Lords, I cannot accept that there is a case based on recent increases for a statutory ceiling. Indeed, some would argue the case the other way round as did the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on Report—and say that fair rent in-creases should be no less than increases in other indicators of inflation. There is no doubt that fair rents would be a lot higher today if they had followed precisely increases in prices or earnings. I accept that there are some cases of increases significantly above the averages that I have quoted, and others of course that are significantly less. But these are more likely to occur on first registrations where the rent was not previously fixed according to the fair rent criteria. Clearly index-linking would be quite wrong in these cases, because a fair rent as assessed by the rent officer would never be changed. The wording of the noble Lord's second amendment would suggest that he accepts that point. As I understand it, he would apply the ceiling only to re-registrations where there has been no change in circumstances. Nevertheless, the amendments would make a charade of the whole fair rent system. I have visions of landlords lobbying for higher old-age pensions so that they can put up rents, and the Christmas pension bonus being—
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord an alternative not because I did not feel that one was better than the other, but in the hope that he might consider that if he is not prepared to accept the one which I would have preferred, then perhaps he would consider the other. Perhaps he will realise that in one of them I have put in something as regards one of the very important points he made on the previous occasion.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I must say that I clearly think that it is wrong to link fair rents to some artificial, extraneous index. It would really undermine the whole of the Rent Act basis taking account of the particular circumstances of the tenancy on which they are assessed.
Where there is hardship for tenants we have the rent allowance system—and supplementary benefit—to deal with it. The allowances available are generous. We have increased from 1st July the maximum payable amounts from £13 to £25 in London—£10 to £23 elsewhere—to ensure that tenants in the highest cost areas can benefit from the scheme. Many of those who would not normally consider themselves eligible can receive help with their rent. To take one or two examples: where a married couple in Westminster have an income of £5,000 a year and rent of £20 a week, over one-third of the rent would be met by rent allowance. If their income was £10,000 a year and their rent £50 a week they would receive over £15 in allowance. Even with an income of over £14,500 a year a couple paying £50 a week would receive some help. The problem is not that the allowance is not generous enough, but that some people fail to take up the help that is available to them as of right.
The noble Lord talked, as he has done on many previous occasions, on the subject of scarcity being a factor in assessing rents. I always say that I do not want to get involved in that topic, not because I do not appreciate the arguments—I once spent a great deal of time looking into them—but because I firmly believe that, if scarcity were to be included, the consequences would be such that the Rent Acts as they exist today would cease to be effective in any way at all. There would be the most horrendous situations. I am sure that the noble Lord does not appreciate the significance of it. Govern-
968
ments of all complexions have always said that, as regards the basis of assessment of rent, it was an absolute fundamental that scarcity should not be included.
The noble Lord said that rent tribunals fix higher rents than rent officers. I think that today that is so, but it was not always the case in the early days of the Rent Act 1965. But inevitably as they tend to deal with re-registrations, the rent tribunals or assessment committees take a broader view than an individual rent officer can take of his own situation in his own local area, and they are often better able to equate the rents in that area with those in others. After all, their job is to try to fix what it says—a fair rent. If the system can lead to some of the types of problems and situations to which the noble Lord referred—yes, I do not deny that there are situations which are less than desirable. But to contemplate ending the basis of the Rent Acts in this way is, I am sure, unthinkable to all parties because the alternatives that were there before and will be there again just would not do for the situations that one would then find.
So, I must say yet again to the noble Lord that I fear that I cannot help with his amendments. I know that it is disappointing for him and I know how sincerely he puts forward his point of view, but there are the other points which I have made. It just is not a starter to index-link rent increases and ceilings on rent levels. Therefore, I wonder whether—albeit I know with disappointment—the noble Lord will feel able yet again to withdraw his amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I could not hear everything that the noble Lord said so the noble Lord must forgive me if I do not deal with every point which he raised. First, as regards the payment towards the rent, I point out that it does not come anywhere near replacing the tremendous burdens placed on tenants. It is part of the rent and it is part of the increase, but it is nothing like the amount that they still have to find. Moreover, they may be wrong, but my experience has been that a great many people regard that type of thing as charity. If the noble Lord looks at the number of people who actually apply for these benefits he will find that it is comparatively few when one considers the number of people

969
affected. There is that human factor—perhaps it is a failing; I do not know. But the independence of the individual is something in which he personally believes.
However, that does not cover the point that this speculation is going on, and everybody knows about it. People are making fortunes out of it at the expense of housing accommodation. The result is that we cannot get places to rent and "scarcity value" as a term is sheer nonsense having regard to the manner in which it is dealt with today. This is all created by the speculators themselves. We do not stop it. We make no attempt to stop it.
In those circumstances I think, with all due respect—and I know that that expression does not always convey satisfaction to the people to whom it is being said—I must ask the House to vote on this particular matter. It is much too serious from the point of view of the community.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8.28 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 42, leave out line 42 and insert ("½(P+S+R)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. This amendment restates in simpler form the formula for the calculation of phased increases in fair rents contained in Clause 60(3). It achieves precisely the same effect as the more complex version currently in Clause 60, but in a manner which is more easily understood. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for—I shall not say suggesting the amendment to me—perhaps in the most effective way possible simply handing me a little piece of paper with an algebraical calculation and no further comment or suggestion. It spoke volumes for itself. If ever one wants a way to influence Government to put something down in a different way, this must be a rather classical or perhaps mathematically classical way of doing it. I am pleased to put it before your Lordships' House as a measure which, while it has no substantive effect, will make the Bill more easily comprehensible. I repeat my grati-
970
tude to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Effect of registration of rent etc.]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved]:
Clause 73 [Dwellings forming part of Crown Estate or belonging to Duchies]:
8.30 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL Baroness FISHER of REDNAL moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 56, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) In the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 the words in section 21 "not exceeding Thirty-one Years in possession, but not in reversion, so that upon every such Demise, where the Subject matter thereof shall consist of Land or Property other than Mines or Minerals, there shall be reserved the full and fair annual Rent of the Property to be comprised therein, to be incident to the immediate Reversion of or in the Premises to be thereby demised without taking any Fine or Consideration in the Nature of a Fine for the granting thereof;" are omitted.".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, my noble friend, Lord Northfield, when he gave me this piece of paper, was giving evidence to a Committee of your Lordships' House. I do not know whether he still is. He has asked me to give his apologies to the House and to move his amendment formally so that it will give the Minister an opportunity to tell us whether he has had any further thoughts on how the Duchy of Cornwall tenants can in some way become eligible for long leases and how the limit of 31 years can be changed. I understand from my noble friend that the Duchy has in draft a Bill to bring up-to-date the Management Act 1863. I am concerned when the Bill will be published and available in your Lordships' House. Can the Minister say whether he will use his best endeavours to ensure that the point in the amendment is included in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there are just two points that I should like to make. The first is that the way in which the Duchy of Cornwall manages its estate within its current statutory framework must, of course, be a matter for it, and

971
not for the Government. The noble Baroness who has just spoken on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised the same points as he did.
When the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred on Report to the agreement in principle by the Crown Estate Commissioners, he did so, as I understood it, hoping that they would grant assignable but non-enfranchisable long leases to sitting tenants. He seemed to suggest that this was some kind of expression of Government policy and that we should now do likewise in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall. I must stress that decisions on the granting of leases were made by the Commissioners and they alone, as a matter of estate management policy following consultation with their tenants, come to such decisions.
The noble Lord pointed out that the Duchy of Cornwall would apparently be prepared to act similarly were it not for the statutory bar on their granting leases of more than 31 years. This still leaves the possibility of leases of 21 to 30 years which are technically "long" for various statutory purposes, but perhaps the noble Lord has in mind leases rather longer than this. There might be a case for removing this statutory bar—I do not wish to comment on that. But there is no sense in which the case flows from the Housing Bill or from any commitment entered into by the Government. If there is a case, it must relate to general Duchy of Cornwall estate management considerations.
This brings me to my second point. It is that the Housing Bill is not the place to make a statutory change of this kind, and that Third Reading in your Lordships' House is most certainly not the time. The text of the noble Lord's amendment I think illustrates the difficulties. As the noble Baroness said, it relates to the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863, which covers land and property generally; that, of course, goes much wider than housing. In that sense it is outside the general subject matter of this Bill. I just cannot tell what consequential problems would rise if we took a slice out of it in the way the noble Lord proposes.
The amendment has, however, drawn attention to the constraints on the granting
972
of long leases by the Duchy, and what the noble Baroness has said will have been carefully noted. She might know that the Duchy is reviewing its powers—as she mentioned—on a general basis. It is in this kind of review, rather than on Third Reading of the Housing Bill, that the point in question can best be looked at, and I am sure that it will then be given the fullest consideration.
I cannot give the specific information for which the noble Baroness has asked; she asked whether it would be a Bill and when will it be published. I am not sure. I expect that that would depend upon the results of the deliberations of the Duchy and, obviously, I cannot foretell what they will be. So I fear that I cannot be more helpful on this particular matter and it seems to me that this will have to await the outcome of the Duchy's own deliberations on the matter.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. I feel sure that when my noble friend Lord Northfield reads the official record no doubt his great interest in it will be furthered in the best way that he thinks is possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 123 [Consent of Housing Corporation to disposals of land by housing associations and housing trusts]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 92, line 28, after ("for") insert ("any of paragraphs 2 to 7 of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very minor amendment which will mean that the Housing Corporation's consent will be required before a registered housing association can grant a long lease of a dwelling in Scotland. The Bill already requires the corporation's consent to be obtained for such disposals in England and Wales and the Government have decided that it would be sensible to put these disposals on the same footing whether they take place North or South of the border. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Interpretation of Part VIII]:
8.37 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 97, line 45, after ("Act") insert ("or' as the case may be, section 208(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment inserts the Scottish definition of a housing association into this clause which is the interpretation clause of Part VIII. The definition is almost identical to that for England and Wales which already appears in the clause, but as most of Part VIII applies to Scotland, it is clearly necessary to include the Scottish definition. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Avoidance of certain unauthorised disposals]:
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 99, line 40, after ("has") insert ("otherwise than in pursuance of a binding contract made before that date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason I move this amendment at Third Reading is that it is an amendment to Clause 137, which is a new clause introduced by the Government. The amendment, to insert the words on the Marshalled List, seeks to protect people who have entered by way of a binding contract into a purchase with a local authority or a housing association not only before this Bill becomes law—which it has not yet—but before the purchasers concerned could possibly have known that a clause in these terms would be inserted in the Bill.
The noble Lord the Minister has criticised me and others for trying to introduce retrospection into legislation and with the greatest possible respect—which is shorthand for saying 'with no respect at all'—here we are with the Government doing precisely the same thing. It is being done in a small way in the sense that it affects only a small number of people, but it is a matter of quite important principle, because the Government are seeking to interfere with vested rights. Once a person has signed a contract for the purchase or the sale of
974
property, that is a binding contract so far as the law of this country is concerned.
I would ask your Lordships to note the words in the new Clause 137 that such an agreement:
"… be deemed always to have been void".
In fact, in this clause the Government are seeking to say that a binding agreement or a binding sale that had been entered into by people who thought they were acting at arms' length, is now found to be a transaction which has been declared retrospectively, by this proposed legislation, as being void. It seems to me that, unless there are very cogent reasons, the Government should be very concerned. The subsection says:
"at any time after 18th July 1980 a local authority or a housing association has disposed of a house".
I say in addition to that, or has entered into a binding contract to sell a house. Those noble Lords who are involved in any way with the conveyancing law in this country will know that a binding contract for sale is virtually the same as a sale. It has the same purpose and brings about the same results, and it is a vested right in terms of the law.
The noble Lord might suggest that the word "disposal" on line 4 of page 100 covers this. I am prepared to concede, and I think the Law Society are, that it is possible that an agreement for a lease might be covered by "disposal"; but it does not seem to the Law Society—and who am I as a solicitor to argue with my professional body?—nor to me, that it would cover a contract for the sale of land.
Therefore, it seems that the Government have left, I hope unintentionally, a loophole in the law. I gather that the Law Society has written to the noble Lord the Minister about this. The only reason why the matter is being raised at this late stage is that it involves a new clause and there was no other way of raising it. I hope that the noble Lord can reassure me and those advising me by saying that the word "disposal" does in fact refer to a contract, or will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
8.42 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I can see the point of this amendment, which I know has the support of the Law Society, but I

975
am sure that the fears expressed are unfounded. The local authorities have given no indication that they share these fears. I should emphasise at once that the central purpose of Clause 137 is to deal with disposals which take place without the necessary consent of the Secretary of State. At present Section 128(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 makes a special provision, the effect of which is to give good title to those who take disposals of this kind from local authorities.
As a measure to deal with potential evasion of the right to buy, we have decided to remove that special protection to relate to council houses and flats disposed of after 18th July 1980, with one important exception. Similar provision is made in relation to housing associations. Turning to the exception, it should be emphasised that an individual purchaser, or two or more individual purchasers, of a single house or flat from a local authority, or housing association, would not be affected by this new clause, which provides for the avoidance of certain unauthorised disposals.
This exception is made because an authority or association might sell, or lease, a house or flat and do so without consent unwittingly, and such a disposal would not subvert the right to buy. So far as disposals by housing associations are concerned, there is at present no protection equivalent to that provided by Section 128(2) of the Local Government Act 1972. The exception made in the clause is an important one. We are not aware of disposals on a large scale which have taken place without necessary ministerial consent being obtained, and we hope that this is not so.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, said that he is concerned about cases which do not require consent at present, but which would do so if this Bill was already in force. I make two comments on that. First, this is a very limited category of disposals, as I think the noble Lord himself said. The great majority of disposals, and all those which could be described as sales, already require consent. I cannot envisage circumstances in which a local authority would enter into a binding contract to make the sort of disposal which would not need consent
976
now but would do so if this Bill was an Act.
If I am wrong, my second observation is relevant. Where consent may he needed it can always be sought. It is open to anyone who fears the effect which this clause may have upon him to approach the department to seek the consent of my right honourable friend to the disposal which he contemplates.
I do not think I can say much more. This is a technical and not too simple a matter, certainly for lay people. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, smiles, and I am glad to see that. I could not make the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, smile earlier in the day but at least I have succeeded with the noble Lord. I am sure he does so not without the concern he has expressed, but I fear that I cannot go further than I have on this. I hope he understands why, and that he may feel able in those circumstances to withdraw the amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I certainly would not seek to divide the House on this, as the noble Lord the Minister said, technical point. But it can be quite important (a) because of its retrospective nature, and (b) because it might pick up a transaction which it was not the intention of the Government to pick up. I can understand—although I do not necessarily support—the Government's wish to stop-up an escape route. It seems to me and the Law Society bad enough to have a provision avoiding transactions from a date which will be some time before the Act becomes law. It would seem to me to have been on the face of it unacceptable in principle that it should affect transactions where a binding vesting contract has been entered into before the amendment was even tabled.
What reassures me is the second leg of the noble Lord's remarks, in that presumably on the few occasions where this has happened and an application was made to the Secretary of State, he would presumably look upon this kind of thing favourably in that people had committed themselves to a legally binding contract at a time before they could possibly have known that this amendment was being put down; and therefore presumably the Minister would look at the record of the speech of the noble Lord the Minister

977
and say, "Well, by Jove, this is a typical example of where we have to let the thing go through". On the strength of that, and before the Minister can say that he did not mean that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.48 p.m.
Lord BARNBY Lord BARNBY moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of s. 4 of 1977 Act
( .Class A in section 4(2) of the 1977 Act shall be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"The appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house fell on or after 1st April 1973, but before the date of passing of the Housing Act 1980, and the dwelling-house on the appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding £1,500 or the appropriate day falls or fell on or after the date of passing of the Housing Act 1980 and the dwelling-house on the appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding £3,500."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should first like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his courteous and considerate hearing before discussion of this Bill, and of course without any commitment. The clause concerns what now appears as an oversight in previous legislation resulting in what appears to be called an injustice, because it is presently in conflict with the overall policy of security of tenure. Its aim is concerned against discrimination of a two-fold character, both against the occupier of a dwelling and also the owner of a building.
The plea for the amendment is generated by inflation which, as in so many other matters, has distorted values which now can be thought inappropriate. Although they were appropriate in the 1977 Act, they are now entirely out of relationship. Therefore the aim of the clause is simple and needs no tedious or voluminous explanation; it is to increase the rateable limit conferring protection under the Rent Act from £1,500 to £3,500 and so extend the security of tenure which is in step with the general policy of the Bill.
Lord STRABOLGI: I support the amendment, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, referred to the Rent Act 1977, which is of course dated only
978
recently because it is a consolidation measure, and the amounts to which he referred go right back to 1973, as is implied in the Amendment. Those were the rateable values below which security was given to regulated tenancies; the larger amount refers, of course, to London, and the smaller amount to cities outside. They were put on by the Conservative Government of Mr. Heath with the support of the Opposition, and it was right that that was done at the time. On the other hand, it has been found since then that there has been great distress and trouble with some of the more expensive flats, particularly in London. A lot of trouble occurred, and was in the newspapers, at Arlington House, for example, where the tenants there had a most dreadful time with some of the new types of property speculators.
The Government should therefore seriously consider increasing the rateable value so as to give security of tenure and regulated tenancies on property which is more expensive and of a higher rentable amount. This is ever more necessary because there will be much more insecurity in the rest of the market with shorthold. I do not know whether they will consider a re-rating. There has not been one recently; but if there is to be a re-rating of rateable values then these amounts will hear little relation to what the new amounts will be. I therefore hope the Government will seriously consider the amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, now realises what is happening in certain places today, and even if the Government are not prepared to support the people concerned or remove the difficulty about which I spoke earlier, at least they should be merciful and see to it that those whose rents have been increased to exorbitant proportions shall have such little protection as the 1977 Act affords.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I say at once that the Government have received a number of representations about the rateable value limits in the Rent Act 1977. At present these are £1,500 in London and £750 elsewhere, as has been said. Tenancies of properties above these rateable values are not protected tenancies under the Rent Act. There are a relatively small number of these tenancies, most of which

979
are in London. About 40 are in Grosvenor Square, and I know of the concern which has been expressed by those living in a particular block there. I have spoken with my noble friend Lord Barnby and other tenants about the problems they are facing. I would certainly accept that these problems are real for those concerned; rents which have been fixed for some years are rising substantially at the end of their leases and, as I understand it, the background may be the owners' plans to turn the flats over to some use other than long-term residential letting.
But it does not necessarily follow that the Rent Acts should be applied here. We are talking of tenants who have been paying agreed rents of some £10,000 a year and who may be prepared to pay more, and it is a far cry from the original purpose of the Rent Acts that rent officers should be asked to fix rents at that sort of level. We should keep the problem in perspective. The Rent Acts were introduced to deal with problems of housing stress, which were particularly acute for those on low incomes who had no other option except to rent the home in which they were living. I do not for a moment pretend that housing stress is limited to those on low incomes, but clearly the considerations are somewhat different for high rateable value tenancies which, typically, would have a value of £200,000 to £300,000 or more if sold on the open market. It cannot be right that we should apply the full panoply of the Rent Act and the fair rent system in these circumstances.
Having said that, let me make it clear that the Government's mind on this is not forever closed. We do not want to form a fixed and immutable view on how and where protection should apply, and we continue to bear in mind all the representations made. I know that there have also been suggestions to help high rateable value tenants which would fall short of applying the Rent Act itself. At this time I am not able to go further than that, but I hope the fact that I mention it, as I do, indicates that this is an area where thought is being given.
We cannot accept the new clause. Even if we were able to agree to an increase in the rateable value limits—and I do not want to mislead noble Lords, least of all
980
my noble friend, by suggesting we are—this clause is not acceptable. Nor do I believe it achieves what my noble friend intends. It is drafted in such a way that it raises the London rateable value limits only for dwellings whose "appropriate" day is after the Housing Act becomes law. The appropriate day is defined in Section 25 of the Rent Act as being the day a dwelling first enters the valuation list, or 23rd March 1965 if that is earlier, so all existing tenancies outside the rateable value limits, including those in Grosvenor Square, would remain outside the rateable value limits.
However, I do not want to let the case stand on technicalities and I would not seek to base the Government's case solely on that. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was an interesting one which I had not previously heard put in this context. I trust that my noble friend Lord Barnby understands why we could not accept the amendment and why, for the reasons I have given, we do not feel that alterations in the rateable value limits within the context of the Rent Act could be done to help with this problem. But I repeat that our minds are not closed. This is an issue which we shall have to look at again, and although I can go no further than that, I hope I have made the position clear to him.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence because of my partly worn-out hearing and because of the breakdown in the electrical arrangements which have no doubt denied your Lordships the possibility of hearing me properly. As I expected, therefore, I could not hear the totality of the Minister's reply; I say that without reflection on the obvious clarity with which he must have dealt with the matter. I suspect that while he could not agree with my amendment, he was courteous enough to explain in not a little detail the reasons why. I must therefore postpone my impatience until I have read in the Official Report—if it is printed tomorrow following the deliberations in the House earlier today—precisely what my noble friend said. I thank him for his comments and hope that the matter will continue to receive his sympathetic consideration. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 149 [Power of local authority to require repair of houses]:
9 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 106, line 36, leave out ("on a representation made by an occupying tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I propose to deal with Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 together, because they cover a similar field. I am moving these amendments to tidy up the new section which has been introduced by the Government. I support the principle of the section, but I feel that it excludes categories of occupiers who very often are affected by disrepair; that is, licensees, especially in houses in multiple occupation. Line 24 means that a notice can be served simply when an officer of the council is satisfied that it is needed. The appropriate notice can be served without the requirement of representation being made by the occupying tenant. I do not feel that this is necessary in this section, either.
Where a public representation has to be made, this can later make life difficult for the occupier, and in particular this is important where the lawful occupant is a licensee and therefore not fully protected. Similarly, line 28 extends this protection to any lawful occupier, not only a protected tenant. The amendment in line 27 is a technical detail to clarify that this notice which can be served in 1(a), which I have referred to before without mentioning the actual section, refers specifically to property in substantial disrepair, but the express purpose of this section is to broaden the application of notices. I beg to move the first of these amendments standing in my name.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, for over 30 years, following a 1942 High Court decision, local authorities were able to use the statutory nuisance provisions in the Public Health Acts to secure the remedying of defects which might not have been substantial in themselves but which interfered with the personal comfort of the occupiers. Authorities made very considerable use of these powers. However, in 1976 the divisional court ruled that the earlier decision could not be sustained. The effect of their ruling was that conditions
982
which affected only the occupiers could not be dealt with unless they were prejudicial to health. We introduced Clause 149, therefore, to give authorities power to deal with defects which, not substantial in themselves, are having a very specific adverse effect on the tenant's home. This will go a long way towards restoring the powers lost by authorities as a result of the 1976 court decision.
However, we restricted the power given to authorities by this clause so that they can only take action where they received representations from an occupying tenant. The first of the noble Lord's amendments would remove this requirement and thus leave local authorities free to take action on their own initiative. I appreciate the purpose of the change, and it may be that there will be cases where a tenant will be unwilling to make the necessary representations. The clause does not, however, require that the representation has to be in a particular form, or even that it has to be in writing. Given that the purpose of the power is to enable local authorities to require the remedying of defects on the ground that they interfere with the comfort of the tenant, it does not seem in any way unreasonable that it should be left to the tenant to decide whether he wants anything done.
There is, moreover, an even more serious objection to these amendments. The combined effect of the first and third amendments would be to enable a local authority to take action against an owner-occupier to compel him to put right defects in his own house which were interfering with nobody's comfort but his own. I hope that we live in a supportive society, but this does seem to be carrying things rather far. If I, as owner of my own house, am content to put up with some defect or other, and it does not interfere with anyone else, that surely is not only my own business but also my right.
Finally, I come to the second amendment. It is true that local authorities already have power to take action against houses which are in substantial disrepair, and it may, therefore, seem illogical not to exclude such a case from the much more limited provisions of this clause. However, there is a reason for not doing so; namely, that the "substantial disrepair" power is only exercisable, first, where the house as a whole is to be brought

983
up to standard; and, secondly, provided this can be done at reasonable cost. The clause as it stands enables an authority to take action to remedy a specific defect in such a case even if there is no prospect of securing the much more expensive range of works which would be needed in order to meet the requirements of the "substantial disrepair" provisions. This amendment would remove that possibility and thus restrict the power of the local authority to act in the tenant's interests. In view of what I have said, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Janner, may feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, it is late in the evening and I do not think I want to go into a long, disputative argument with the noble Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 153 [Commencement]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32:
Page 108, line 1, after ("(1)") insert ("Chapter I of")
Page 108 line 3, at end insert—
("(1A) Chapter II of Part I shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint or, if no such order has been made, on the expiry of the period of eight weeks mentioned in subsection (1) above.").
Page 108 line 4, leave out from ("Sections") to ("shall") and insert ("90 to 105, 108, 112, 113, 120, 122 to 127, 130, 131, 133 to 135, 137 to 140, 150, 151, 152(2) and 153 to 155")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission might we take Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 en bloc? As I have already spoken to them with Amendment No. 1, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155 [Short title and extent]:
9.8 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 108, line 20, after first ("to") insert ("122(1), 123 to")
Page 108 line 21, leave out from ("section") to ("extend") and insert ("Schedule 14, Part II of Schedule 16, paragraphs 1to 3 of Schedule 17, Schedule 18, paragraphs 11 to 13, 24, 25 and 69 of Schedule 25 and the associated repeals in Schedule 26").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 together. The first of these amendments disapplies all but Clause 122(1) to Scotland. Under the Bill as drafted the whole of the clause extends to Scotland, but save for the first subsection, which empowers housing associations to sell, the application is inappropriate. The second amendment sets out the schedules and parts of schedules to the Bill which are relevant to Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Tenancies which are not secure tenancies]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 116, line 45, at end insert ("or as mortgagee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very minor change to the exclusion providing that lettings of dwellings leased to local authorities for use as temporary housing accommodation shall not be secure. We have provided this exclusion because, of course, we do not want to do anything to jeopardise the so-called "North Wiltshire" arrangements, where public sector landlords are offered, on lease, a dwelling from a private home owner to be used as temporary housing accommodation.
We have written into the Bill, as a safeguard against abuse, that the exclusion should not apply where the public sector landlord has an interest in the dwelling other than under the lease. However, it has been brought to our attention that there may be some instances where a public sector landlord may be offered, for temporary use, a dwelling subject to a mortgage which it has granted. There seems no reason, where this is the sole interest, why the benefit of the exclusion should not be available. This amendment therefore provides that such an interest does not prevent the exclusion applying. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 118, line 13, at end insert—
("14. 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 and is granted a certificate of exemption under this paragraph by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an amendment that I should like to put to a Division. It is unfortunate that there are but few Members now in the House, and I must decide, perhaps on the basis of who is on the Government side, whether in fact to press the matter to a Division. Those noble Lords who listened to me late at night at the Report stage of the Bill will know that this amendment, although less satisfactory than the one that I then moved with support from all sides, has the same object in view. I can describe it very briefly.
There are a considerable number of charities whose object is to provide relatively short-term accommodation to people in desperate need. Unmarried mothers with young children are a case in point but there are other people who need a limited period in which to readjust and to rehabilitate themselves. In nearly all cases there are long waiting lists for such vacancies. The Government do not, and cannot with limited funds, provide this kind of facility; nor are they likely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future. All they provide is bed and breakfast, which is quite unsuited, for example, to the mother of a young baby.
The Bill gives secure tenancies to these people. No doubt the Minister will refer to Ground 9 of Schedule 4, which allows the charity to go to the court for repossession if continued occupation of the dwelling would conflict with the object of the charity and alternative accommodation is available. That sounds quite reasonable, but really it is not so at all. The accommodation thus secured was specifically planned to provide short-term relief and is not necessarily appropriate for permanent tenants.
Further, by application to the court a heavy burden is imposed on these specialist charities. First, application to the court is costly; secondly, there can be a wait of several months before the case is heard; and thirdly, alternative accommodation often will not await the delay before the court hears the case. There are other reasons. A secure tenancy enables tenants to take in lodgers and to sublet, which is often undesirable in the case of single mothers, and which could mean yet another application to the court to terminate the sub-tenancy.
I think that the House has clearly shown its view about this Bill. What is so worrying is that it seems that the Government have tried to legislate in principle and in detail without regard to pragmatism and side effects; and this I think is one of those cases. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have been in close touch with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who has always been most courteous and helpful, but unfortunately he has been unable to meet any of the suggestions that I put forward. This amendment may be defective, and, it would seem from the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to me, unacceptable to the Government, at least at the time that he wrote it. I nevertheless ask your Lordships to support this amendment.
This is a Bill which is going to be, I am afraid, a lawyers' paradise; and even if this amendment is in minor respects defective, I do not think this will make much difference to the problems of the Bill as a whole. This really is an important point. The Government will no doubt argue that of course it is up to the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion as to what charities should be exempt; but, of course, what I have quoted—Ground 9 in Schedule 4—does exactly that. The only difference is that it leaves it to the court to do it. In view of what I have said, I hope that if I take this amendment to a Division noble Lords from every Bench will support me. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I say very briefly that I support the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, even though, as he says that if this amendment is not passed the situation will be a lawyers' paradise, from the point of view of self-interest I should oppose it. I would have

987
thought that this was an important measure which will affect a minority of charitable organisations, but the kind of organisation which is in fact doing a very great deal to help the public sector from a voluntary point of view. They will be deterred, I suspect, if the security of tenure is involved, and all that goes with that—the right to take in sub-tenants, and so on.
Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can deal with this, but I would have thought that the Government's control over this becoming a major loophole is well taken care of by the last few words of the noble Viscount's amendment; namely, that this right will be granted only if a certificate of exemption is provided by the Secretary of State. I would have thought that any danger that this would become a huge loophole in the Government's legislation was protected by the fact that it would be most unlikely that the Secretary of State would give such a certificate and provide such a loophole. I would have thought that an amendment, perhaps not in these precise words but something accepting principles of this kind, would be acceptable to the Government.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps I may say two or three words in support of the amendment. I can see some of the difficulties which have been raised by the Government when they have been opposing it in the past, but I think the noble Viscount has put his finger on what is likely to be a very great problem; and the fact that it may be small in dimension does not make the situation any better for those who are going to suffer from it. If it means, as I understand—and the case put forward by the noble Viscount seems to me to be a very strong one—that in fact the charities which deal with, for instance, either battered wives or single-parent families are going to find that they are not able to turn over their clientele, which is really the only way they can work with limited resources, both financial and as far as property is concerned, then obviously it is going to be a very grave situation; and to be able to go to the court, as the noble Viscount pointed out, is not very much help when time and money is involved.
As the noble Viscount rightly said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Evans, even if the amendment itself is defective it really is the purpose behind it, I think,
988
which is concerning and worrying many of us; and if the Government can bring forward something alternative, or be prepared to do something about this, I would have thought that this would have met the case. But it seems to me that the main thing is that a case has been made out, and we do not seem to have had so far a very satisfactory or completely clear answer to it.
9.18 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I must say at once that I very much appreciate the concern which has moved the noble Viscount to table this amendment to the tenants' charter. I know he has been particularly anxious about this matter for some time; and, indeed, the very fact that he has felt the need to move it again at this late stage I think indicates the measure of his concern. I have great respect for that, and I do not mean that in the rather lighthearted way in which people were talking about respect earlier—I really do mean it. The noble Viscount is of course particularly anxious about charities which provide short-term accommodation for groups such as unsupported mothers or homeless families who are in urgent need; and the need for flexibility, which the noble Lord stresses, is something which I obviously accept. But, as I have explained previously, I cannot accept the amendment, which would have the effect of denying the tenants' charter rights to a potentially large number of tenants simply because of their landlords' objectives.
Again, as I said before, the use of the phrase "short-term" poses the most serious problems of definition. For instance, is a period of two or three years—which I believe is the sort of timetable on which some of the associations the noble Viscount is concerned about operate—really short-term? I do not believe it is possible to separate out particular types of need for special treatment.
I know that the suggestion of an exemption certificate procedure is a helpful attempt to avoid the problem of mass exclusions and consequent possible abuse, but I am afriad there are genuine and serious objections. At present, all exclusions from the tenants' charter are stated on the face of the Bill, so that tenants know where they stand. If this principle were

989
breached, tenants could not be sure that at some time in the future their tenancy would not be declared insecure because an exemption certificate had been issued to their landlord. I do not think this would be acceptable.
A further difficulty arises on the criteria for granting an exemption certificate. If criteria were stated on the face of the Bill, the problems of defining, for instance, the phrase "short-term" would arise again. If there were no criteria, Ministers would be open to charges of arbitrariness.
However, I believe, as the noble Viscount quite properly assumed, that the amendment which has been tabled to Schedule 4 will meet many of the points which the noble Viscount is concerned about, by acting upon the grounds for possession rather than by exclusion. I know that many housing associations' short-term arrangements involve rehousing by local authorities at the end of the day. I believe an addition such as we are providing in Schedule 4 to allow possession to be sought where a local authority has offered secure accommodation, will allow associations to maintain a throughput of tenants without taking away the tenants' rights while they are in occupation.
I for myself am confident that this, combined with the existing grounds for possession, is the right approach. If I may make one or two other general observations on what has been said, Ground 9 is, of course, not the only option open to charities; alternative accommodation must be available when it is needed, such as when the order for possession takes effect. The Government must be satisfied with this.
I have said that I feel the amendment to Schedule 4 will meet most of the noble Viscount's points. At present, in any case, it should also be said that landlords already have to go to court to seek possession if the tenant is not willing to move. Furthermore, even if the tenancy is not subject to security of tenure, it is still necessary to go to court in order to evict the tenant. Neither the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, nor the noble Lord, Lord Evans, mentioned Ground 11 for possession. This could be even more useful than Ground 9, particularly if amended on the lines of the Government
990
Amendment No. 37. As to the assertion that the Bill will be a lawyers' paradise, I will not make any comment on that. I wonder how many Bills on housing have not eventually turned out to be a lawyers' paradise, which brings another smile to the face of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and understandably so.
I really am regretful if the noble Viscount feels I have not covered his points properly. I stress again, yes, his concern is a very real one, and because we have tried to pursue it over a period of time I have endeavoured to become involved in the discussions to feel satisfied myself on this. Because I have done so, it is not without confidence that I say I believe the fears are not groundless, they are certainly not groundless, but they will not in practice be justified to the extent they might have been. In any case, it would be the duty of any Government to monitor what did take place in practice, and that we will certainly do, whatever course the noble Viscount decides to take.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his very nice approach to this amendment, particularly after the rather caustic remarks I made about the Bill as a whole at Report stage. He will know that what he has said does not meet the point. I do not want to delay the House, but I would say first that it is inconceivable that the charities who take these people in on a short-term basis would be liable to throw them out on to the streets. He has admitted that if you apply to the courts you have to have alternative accommodation available at that time and, bearing in mind that it might take months to get the case heard in court, any accommodation that you may have lined up is unlikely to be available at that time. There we are. I am afraid that most of these charities—and there are a large number of them indeed—are very unhappy about this. They feel that it strikes at the roots of all that they are trying to do and that is something which the Government cannot do for them. They regard it as the Government kicking them in the face. I am afraid that, with all respect and thanks for all the trouble that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has taken over this matter, I cannot withdraw the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): The Question is that Amendment No. 36 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The Not-Contents have it. Amendment No. 37. The Lord Bellwin.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I will speak to—
Viscount HAN WORTH: My Lords, I did not withdraw the amendment. I said, "Content".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, the acoustics are very bad—
Schedule 4 [Grounds for possession of dwelling-houses let under secure tenancies]:
9.35 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 120, line 13, leave out from ("(a)") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("either there is no longer such a person residing in the dwelling-house or the tenant has received from a local
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I suggest, in view of the fact that it is extremely difficult for the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker to have heard my noble friend that—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, perhaps I should put the Question again.
9.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 36) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.[Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Birk,B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Craigavon, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

David, B.[Teller.]

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

London, Bp.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Monson, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Gainford, L.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Avon, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Balerno, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Chelwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trenchard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

de Clifford, L.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L.

Middleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dulverton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

authority an offer of accommodation in premises which are to be let as a separate dwelling under a secure tenancy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 38. There has been some concern in this House about the problems of housing associations providing accommodation on a short-or medium-term basis for particular groups such as single-parent families or the homeless. In particular, many noble Lords have expressed their concern

993
that such associations will, as a result of the Bill, be unable to keep up their existing valuable work by maintaining a throughput of tenants because the tenants will have security of tenure.
I believe, however, that we have drawn the exclusions correctly. Having looked again at housing associations' genuine need for flexibility, it has become clear that in many of the cases where associations are providing short- and medium-term accommodation they are doing so until the local authority is in a position to rehouse the tenants permanently. Of course, nothing in the Bill as it stands prevents local authorities from continuing to rehouse short-term housing association tenants, but there is no ground on which associations may seek possession in such cases in order to meet the pressing needs of new, and otherwise uncatered for, applicants.
This amendment therefore extends Ground 11 for possession. It will allow associations which cater for special needs to seek possession, if the accommodation is needed for someone in the "special need" class for which they cater, and the existing tenant has been offered a secure tenancy by the local authority. I believe this addition will give the extra flexibility that is needed to allow specialist associations more easily to carry out their valuable work.
Perhaps I should say, further, that in cases where our own amendment to Ground 11 is in use the certificate system can be expected to operate. It would conflict with this arrangement which has been specially designed to assist housing associations who lack the accommodation in which to rehouse tenants and would slow down the throughput of tenants for associations who are using Ground 11 if a further condition for suitability were introduced into the ground itself. This would be to the disadvantage of the local authority, the housing association and the people who are waiting for a tenancy with that association. Therefore, I think we must accept that a certificate from an authority saying that suitable accommodation will be available means what it says. I beg to move what I hope is a helpful and useful amendment.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, Amendment No. 38:
Line 4, leave out ("an") and insert ("at least one suitable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government amendment extends the grounds under which the housing association can, in certain circumstances, evict secure tenants. As it stands in the Bill, Ground 11 covers housing associations which let accommodation to special needs groups and allows them to obtain possession if there is no longer a person with a special need living in the accommodation and the association needs the dwelling to let to another person who has such needs: examples are the disabled, the mentally handicapped, or the elderly.
However, if the amendment were passed as it stands, without my amendment, it would enable the housing association to obtain possession if a tenant with a special need had been made an offer of accommodation by a local authority. The tenant may be reluctant to accept the particular offer either because it is in an inconvenient location or because its condition is not satisfactory, or for reasons of personal preference. Yet, as the amendment stands, the tenant would be under pressure to accept the offer or risk eviction. There are only those alternatives.
The only safeguard is that Ground 11 is subject to the court being satisfied that it is reasonable to give possession and that suitable accommodation will be available to the tenant when the possession order takes effect. Though this provides a safeguard, it does depend on the tenant defending the possession action in court. This can be expensive and time-consuming and some tenants may be intimidated by the thought of having to go to court.
The purpose of my amendment to the Government amendment is to make it quite clear that the tenant must have been given at least one suitable offer before a housing association can seek possession. This will provide a more effective safeguard for the tenant, while still enabling the housing association to obtain possession if the tenant has been given a number of suitable offers and has turned them all down without good reason. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I touched earlier on some of the points that I wanted to make on the noble Baroness's amendment, but perhaps I can just make one or two further observations. The noble Baroness has sought to make it a further condition that there shall have been at least one suitable offer of accommodation. If she looks at Clause 34, she will see that an order for possession under Ground 11 cannot be made, unless the court is satisfied both that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant and that it is reasonable to make the order.
Part II of Schedule 4 sets out the criteria against which a court shall judge suitable alternative accommodation. Paragraph 3 provides that a certificate from a local authority shall be conclusive evidence that suitable alternative accommodation will be available where a landlord, other than a local authority (such as a housing association) is applying for possession on a ground requiring suitable alternative accommodation. If I say more on this point, it will be repeating what I said previously about the certificate procedure. In those circumstances, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will feel satisfied.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I see the point that the Minister has made. I was aware of what is in Clause 34, but it seems to me that it would be better to include it here as well, so that the position is beyond doubt. I cannot see any objection to putting it in, if, as the Minister says, one is really underlining and repeating something that is elsewhere in the Bill. We are now dealing with Schedule 4 and one might not want to turn to one of the other parts of the Bill, when one seems to be spending half of one's life reading this Housing Bill. I should have thought this was something which could be easily accepted, in order to make the position clear. If the Minister has a real objection, perhaps he can explain to me what it is. He has explained that this is covered to some extent, but it obviously is not covered here in Schedule 4, because it does not read in that way.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the noble Baroness withdrawing the amendment?
Baroness BIRK: Yes.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Registered housing associations]:
9.44 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 149, line 4, leave out ("they relate") and insert ("it relates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a minor consequential amendment following on a previous change in Schedule 16. At Report stage, we accepted an amendment to alter the phrase "accounts give" in paragraph 4(2)(a) of the schedule to "revenue account gives". As a consequence, it is necessary to change the phrase "they relate" in the same subsection to "it relates". My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Amendments of Housing Acts 1974 Part III]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 153, line 26, after ("lease") insert ("or licence to occupy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 1 of Schedule 18 makes it clear that grant can be provided for housing associations' shared ownership schemes. While the schemes operate in England and Wales by means of leases, in Scotland they operate by way of licences to occupy. The amendment thus enables grant to be given for Scottish shared ownership schemes and I invite your Lordships to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 156, line 19, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 70. These amendments are simply small,

997
consequential amendments to changes to the Housing Act 1974 which are already incorporated in Schedule 18 to the Bill.
Schedule 18 amends the circumstances in which revenue deficit grant may be paid. Under the 1974 Act it may only be paid on the provision of dwellings and any related property; under the Bill it may be paid on any of an association's housing activities. Section 32(8) of the 1974 Act contains a definition of "related property" which is no longer needed, as the phrase has been superseded under the new circumstances in which RDG can be paid. The amendments therefore repeal subsection (8). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 156, line 21, at end insert—
("; and
(g) subsection (8) is hereby repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Provisions replacing sections 90 to 91A of Housing Finance Act 1972]:
9.47 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 157, line 48, leave out from ("concerned") to ("and") in line 1 on page 158.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I propose to deal at the same time with the next two amendments; they refer to the same point. Despite all the attempts which have been made both in your Lordships' House and in the other place, very few changes have been made to the service charge provisions of the Bill. This amendment is to ensure that the one safeguard which requires the landlord to inform tenants of his intention to undertake major works and to give them the opportunity to make observations is effective. It is simply not enough to allow the landlord to display a notice so as to be likely to come to the attention of the tenants. He must be obliged, in my view, to give to each tenant a copy of the notice and to address one formally to
998
the tenants' association, in the particular place where there is such an association. The cost of putting out these notices would be negligible compared with the cost that tenants might have to bear if extravagant works were carried out without adequate consultation.
I should like to point out that in existing tenancies, particularly in blocks of flats, the notice might very well be overlooked by some of the tenants. Furthermore, many of them might be away and would never see this notice, or would not see it for weeks or months. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, paragraph 5 of Schedule 19 as drafted requires the landlord to inform his tenants of proposed work costing more than whatever is the prescribed amount in the particular block. He can do this either by giving each tenant a notice describing the works and inviting comments and a copy of the estimates for the work, or by displaying a copy—perhaps more than one—where it is likely to come to their notice.
Amendment No. 43 would remove the option to display a notice. I should have thought there would be situations where it would be the more practical and sensible alternative, and I would be reluctant to dispense with it. We believe that a flexible approach is the best here. I would remind your Lordships' House that if the landlord fails to observe this requirement he will run the risk of not being able to recover the full cost of the works. If he relies on displaying the notice and estimates rather than giving copies to every tenant, he will need to satisfy himself that it can be seen by all the tenants and remains visible for a reasonable time. Consequently, in a large block of flats a landlord might decide to display copies of the notice and estimates in each entrance or stairway. On the other hand, he might feel that he was on surer ground in giving a copy to every tenant. Indeed, he might consider it safest to do both. In any case, he has to give a copy to the secretary of a recognised tenants' association. I do not see that anything is to be lost by leaving the choice open and letting common sense prevail.
As far as Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are concerned, I do not think they would

999
serve any useful purpose and therefore wonder whether the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, there is not much point in pursuing the amendment and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
9.51 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 158, line 20, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with regard to this amendment, while in paragraph 5(6) of Schedule 19 the landlord is allowed to carry out the works if they are urgently required, in my view there is no need for this clause which allows the court to dispense with the requirements of the schedule if the landlord acts reasonably. I see no reason for that at all. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I would remind the House that the consultation requirements in Schedule 19 to the Bill contain a very strong sanction, not to be found in the existing legislation, so that if the landlord fails to comply with these requirements he will not normally be able to recover the full cost of the works even if the cost was reasonable. He could be very heavily out of pocket as a result. Nevertheless we have to recognise that there may be circumstances in which he could not comply with the requirements. For example, in the case of very specialised work, such as repairs to a lift, he might not be able to get two estimates, because no firm other than the one which had installed the lift would quote for the job. It would be wrong in our view for the landlord to be penalised as a result, and paragraph 6 gives the court discretion to dispense with the consultation requirements if satisfied that the landlord had acted reasonably.
would not agree that this paragraph would enable the landlord to evade the consultation requirement generally, or to disregard the expressed views of tenants in particular. If the landlord, having consulted, decided to act in a way contrary
1000
to the expressed wishes of the tenants, he would have to satisfy the court, if challenged, that he had nevertheless had regard to their views. Paragraph 6 provides an essential safeguard for the landlord, but it does not provide him with a means of evasion.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, again I have listened with interest. I wish we had a few of the tenants' associations here and could give them leave to vote; I think the noble Lord would realise that his answers are not as satisfactory as they would want, but in the circumstances what can one do? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 158, line 24, leave out from ("tenant") to ("requests") in line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I beg leave also to speak to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. These amendments are to Schedule 9 which deals with service charges in flats. They make a small but not unimportant change in the provisions under which tenants have a right to information about their service charge. The purpose of the first two is to safeguard the individual tenant's right to obtain a summary of costs relating to his own flat. They provide that the secretary of a recognised tenants' association may obtain the summary only if he has the consent of the tenant concerned.
This is needed because under paragraph 10 of the schedule a landlord is not required to produce a summary for a particular flat more than once for any particular year. This was in the 1972 Act and seems to be reasonable. This does mean, however, that, as a result of the rights we have provided for association secretaries, if the secretary obtained the summary first the landlord would not be obliged to provide it again for the tenant.
Although it seems unlikely that the secretary would not give the tenant a copy of the summary that possibility must be recognised, particularly where not all the tenants belong to the association. The amendment accordingly provides that the secretary must first obtain the tenant's consent. The tenant could then give his

1001
consent on condition that he received a copy of the summary. The third amendment similarly provides that the secretary can only inspect the accounts and receipts relating to a particular summary with the consent of the tenant concerned. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, these are very useful amendments, considerable improvements to the Bill, and we welcome them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.55 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 158, line 31, at end insert—
(" (1A) If there is a recognised tenants' association for the building and the tenant consents, a request under sub-paragraph (1) above may be made by the secretary of the Association instead of by the tenant and may then be for the supply of the summary to the secretary.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 158, line 41, leave out ("he") and insert ("the tenant, or the secretary with the consent of the tenant").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 160, line 39, leave out paragraph 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my view the right to information and to challenge service charges must apply to tenants who pay non-variable service charges as well as to those who pay variable service charges. The purpose of this amendment is to put this right. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, Government amendments in Committee of your Lordships' House to Clause 59 and Schedule 6 fulfil our commitment to give fixed fair rent tenants the opportunity to challenge the evidence on service costs deployed by their landlords before the rent officer. The rent officer in fixing a fair rent would anyway only take account of service costs which he considered to be reasonable. But our amendments give an added safeguard to the tenant.
I would suggest to the noble Lord that this is a much better approach than that in his amendment because it places the safeguard in the right place. Fixed fair rent tenants can only have their rent increased by the rent officer, and it is at that point that we are providing them with a right to challenge the landlord's evidence. The noble Lord's amendment, however, seeks to apply the machinery of Schedule 19, which is designed for those whose leases
1004
provide for a service charge which can be varied at any time according to the costs incurred. It is not intended for fixed fair rent tenants, and I could not say quite what the legal effect would be if it was applied to them. All I could guarantee is perhaps uncertainty for all those involved. In the light of this, and of the major safeguard introduced by the Government at an earlier stage, I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Lord is not able to accept the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20 [Housing co-operatives]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 62:
Page 162, line 1, leave out ("or") and insert ("a")
after ("corporation") insert ("or the Development Board for Rural Wales")
Page 162, line 5, leave out ("or")
after ("corporation's") insert ("or Board's")
Page 162, line 35, after ("corporation") insert ("or the Development Board for Rural Wales")
Page 162, line 37, after ("corporation's") insert ("or Board's")
at end insert ("or the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976")
Page 162, line 43, after ("corporation") insert ("or the Development Board for Rural Wales")
Page 162, line 46, leave out ("or") and insert ("a")
after ("corporation") insert ("or the Development Board for Rural Wales")
Page 162, line 49, leave out ("or")
at end insert ("or Board").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 51 to 62 inclusive. These amendments rectify an omission in the drafting of the Bill. The schedule is in effect a re-enactment of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, which was used as the basis for a similar provision for the Development Board for Rural Wales in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976. However, the board has not been included in the

1005
scope of Schedule 20 to the Bill. There is no reason why the board should not be covered in the same way as local authorities and new town corporations, and the amendments will accordingly bring within the scope of the schedule agreements made for the exercise by a housing co-operative of any of the board's powers under the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 relating to land in which the board has a legal estate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Amendments of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Housing Act 1974, Schedule 8]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 163, line 24, after ("1980") insert ("or in pursuance of a contract entered into before that date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may be aware there is a provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 21 to the Bill which closes a loophole in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Under this some landlords have been granting leases terminable by notice given by the tenant after the death of a third party, such as a descendant of King George V.
The Government decided that the change in the law should not operate retrospectively, and consequently it does not affect leases granted before 18th April 1980, the date on which the proposal was announced. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has drawn our attention to a situation in which building agreements have already been entered into requiring the granting of leases of the houses which will be terminable on the death of a third party.
We take the noble Lord's point and in order to prevent this proposal operating retrospectively in these circumstances the Government have tabled Amendment No. 63. This exempts from the 1967 Act leases of this kind granted after 18th April 1980 as a result of a contractual agreement entered into before that date. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the Government very much for this amendment which will avoid accidental, unfair retrospection, which I know the Government would not wish to embark upon.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, it is slightly better than nothing. Thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Houses in multiple occupation: means of escape from fire]:
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 169, line 15, after ("is") insert ("occupied by three or more households or six or more individuals or is")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 24 gives the Secretary of State the power to specify certain types of houses in multiple occupation, and the local authorities will then have the duty to ensure that these houses are made safe with effective means of escape from fire. I ask my noble friend to tell the House precisely the type of premises that are to be covered by this duty. I believe that there is real concern that if this new duty is to be worth the paper that it is written on it must cover multi-occupied houses like the hostel in Kilburn where the fire last March occurred in which 11 women died and that was a three-storey terraced house.
My amendment—and I shall call it, if I may, the "Kilburn Amendment"—seeks to ensure that houses in multiple occupation which are occupied by three or more family households or by six or more single people, would be covered by the new duty. I can well understand that local authorities would not want the duty to cover every house in multiple occupation in their area. What is essential, therefore, in my opinion, is that the houses occupied by two-family households are excluded from this amendment, but that small hostels, like the one in Kilburn, containing people, are included. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
I am aware that on Report my noble friend said that he would need further

1007
talks with the local authorities—and I hope that he has had the opportunity to have them—about the scope of the duty. My amendment would leave the Secretary of State with the power to specify types of premises over and above those houses now listed in the amendment. It would therefore leave the Secretary of State with flexible powers, while at the same time setting crucial safeguards for people living in small hostels.
I am pleased that the Government have in this Bill moved some way to recognise the need to protect vulnerable, single homeless people. But I urge my noble friend to go one step further and give them adequate protection in law by accepting this amendment. It would show that the Government are ready to respond to the great public concern over what I think a great many people consider to be a matter of life and death. I beg to move.
The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. It concerns a very vital and important area of safety, and we have already seen in London the awful consequences when there are not proper safeguards. The amendment of the noble Baroness gives a cutting edge to this clause, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, we also should like to support this amendment. I think it is very necessary to cover the people living in small hostels, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, you may recall that, when I moved at Report stage the amendment that brought Schedule 24 to the Bill, I explained that it was an amendment with far-reaching implications, in that it provided a means of laying a duty on local authorities to take action in the matter of means of escape; and for this reason we felt that it was imperative to allow time for the most thorough consultation on the question of whether, and if so how, the scope of the duty should be restricted.
I stand by what I said then, and I am afraid that I cannot accept an amendment that would pre-empt those consultations. I have to say to my noble friend Lady Vickers that there has been no evidence put
1008
forward that the implications of her amendment have been considered, in respect either of the effect on local authority resources, or of the kinds of property that would be affected; and it is possible that, at worst, the acceptance of this amendment could be so damaging as to lead to widespread closures and homelessness. It would be tragic if this were to happen simply for lack of careful consideration of all aspects of the matter.
We are most concerned about this situation and noble Lords would surely not expect otherwise, but we must take into account all the implications of what we seek to do. If the amendment were accepted as it is, it could mean that unless the definition of HMOs was clearly made in such a way that local authorities could cope with the situation, it would lead to what I have suggested. I do not want to sound dramatic about it, but this is far too serious a matter for us just to be tossing around by way of discussion.
There is considerable concern here that the problem is very far-reaching in its implications. We are most anxious that we should not do anything in a way that may, on the face of it, seem not to be right. I very much take the points made by those who have spoken, but at the same time there is much in this which is very difficult, and we shall only obtain the best solutions if we are able to do this without preempting the consultations and discussions which we are having, and must have, with all those concerned, not least local authority associations.
In the light of the way in which I have expressed the concern, I wonder whether my noble friend will feel able, if not competely satisfied—because I suppose one never is completely satisfied if one puts forward an amendment which is not accepted—to accept what I am saying in the way in which I said it and perhaps in those circumstances feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Vickers for having moved this amendment, and also to my noble friend Lord Bellwin for the comment that he has made on it. It is certainly the case that, although housing authorities—and I speak for the ADC—are fully seized of the problem which was thrown up and revealed by

1009
the tragic episode in Kilburn, they do not have the resources to deal with the matter on the scale that is likely to be before them if this amendment were to be accepted. That is not to say that the issue ought not to be looked at, and suitable priorities developed after appropriate forms of consultation. I can certainly give my assurance that every housing authority is fully seized of the importance of this matter and wants to deal with it in the best way possible in the light of the resources available to them.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said, I should like to ask him two questions. He said that he will discuss the matter with the local authorities. Will he also discuss the matter with the environmental officers and particularly with the fire officers?— because one of the difficulties is that in different boroughs of London and in different counties they have completely different standards. Perhaps he could consider this and write to me about it. I should be grateful if he could consider those three points. I was a little sorry that the answers to my Amendment No. 147 in the previous debate did rather prevent me from expressing myself on that occasion, and that is why I put down this amendment today.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with leave, may I just say that after having heard my noble friend I shall again read carefully what she has said. Of course, I shall write to her on the point.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 171, line 3, at beginning insert ("section").
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment. It corrects an error in Schedule 24, dealing with means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation, which was added to the Bill at Report stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.12 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 171, line 9, at end insert—
("16. In section 70 of the Housing Act 1969 after the words "Part IV of the 1974 Act "there are added the words" section 147 of and Schedule 24 to the 1980 Act ".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting amendment which I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept. I should like to ask him how exactly local authorities would become aware of unsafe hostel conditions so that they would have to assume the duties and the powers set out in Schedule 24. Local authorities have a duty under Section 70 of the Housing Act 1969 to inspect the houses in multiple occupation in their district "from time to time".
There is some argument as to whether that duty is sufficiently rigorous, bearing in mind the dangers to life and limb in some hostels, of which we are all too well aware. However, local authorities have such a duty, and it would not be possible to amend it at this stage of our proceedings on this Bill. My amendment to Schedule 24 would ensure that local authorities are well aware that they must inspect hostels in their area from time to time to satisfy themselves that they are safe. I gather that this does not add to existing legislation but merely consolidates it. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Vickers has tabled two amendments dealingwith houses in multiple occupation which would have the combined effect of placing local authorities under a double duty: first, to inspect their areas, and, secondly, to secure adequate means of escape from all houses in multiple occupation occupied by three or more households or six or more individuals. This may involve the inspection of tens of thousands of properties. What arguments are advanced to demonstrate the rightness of the arbitrary choice of size? How are the local authorities to find the resources of men and money?
As my noble friend Lord Sandford so rightly pointed out when we debated this topic on Report, we must guard against the best becoming the enemy of the good. It was for precisely that reason that the

1011
Government's proposals, set out in Schedule 24, were cast in such a way as to provide an opportunity for detailed consideration and wide-ranging consultation. My noble friend may argue that she is doing little more than continue the general duty under Section 70 of the Act of 1969. But we cannot overlook the further implications of the duty to require means of escape, whether defined in the terms proposed by my noble friend or in some other way. The provisions must operate in concert and consideration of their implications should be similarly concerted.
Naturally, we will consider in the discussions and consultations to which I referred when we discussed the last amendment, how these aspects should be linked. I would just say again that this is indeed a subject that we cannot just pass by because we are all so anxious to ensure proper provision. We must handle this carefully and properly, and after much consultation—and by that I do not mean that that should drag on, because I know that consultation can be an excuse for doing nothing, or for doing very little for a long period of time. If we do not do it very carefully, in the manner I have suggested, there is a real danger that local authorities will feel that they are unable to comply strictly speaking within what might be laid down in this way, and therefore we should have the kind of adverse results which no one wants to see. I hope I have given enough expression to the real concern we share with my noble friend, but it could not be done in the form of the amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 25 [Minor and consequential amendments, transitional provisions and savings]:
10.16 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 176, line 20, leave out from ("in") to ("the") in line 21 and insert ("subsection (7) there are substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor consequential amendment to the
1012
amendments to Clause 61 and Schedule 25 dealing with the effective date of rent registrations which were made by the Government on Report in your Lordships' House. It has no substantive effect. Clause 61, as amended, already revises this subsection. The reference to it in Schedule 25 is therefore superfluous and the amendment simply deletes it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 181, line 33, at end insert—
(" (2) Section 104(3) of the 1957 Act shall have effect, in the period between the commencement of section 91 and the commencement of Chapter II of Part I of this Act as if Chapter 11 were in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 181, line 37, at end insert—
(" 69A. Subsection (3A) of section 2 of the 1974 Act (inserted by section 123(4) of this Act) shall have effect, in the period between the commencement of section 123(4) and the commencement of Chapter II of Part I of this Act as if Chapter II were in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Repeals]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 185, line 29, leave out ("subsection (4) ") and insert ("subsections (4) and (8).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.18 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I wish at the outset to thank noble Lords for the very great effort they have put into the consideration of the Bill. We have

1013
had lengthy sittings, finishing very late on several occasions. We have had to consider the Bill on Monday and Friday as well as the more customary days in the middle of the week. We have spent many days and late nights on it with at least one false start and one interruption of a rather major nature. However, we are in the main most of us still here.
As a result of the lengthy and thorough consideration which your Lordships have given to the Bill, I believe that important issues have been aired and are at least better understood, even where we have not been able to accept all the points made. Despite what some may have said or felt, we have tried to be flexible and we have brought forward amendments to meet points raised wherever we could do so without breaching the fundamental principles behind the legislation. I do not intend to refer to them now, but I have with me quite an impressive list of amendments made both in this House and in another place, many of them in response to proposals made other than by the Government.
I wish to thank all who have taken part in the proceedings during the various stages of the Bill. To name names is always fraught with the danger of omission, but I should like to say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I felt that her contribution at all times was never less than courteous and helpful in expediting the proceedings. We disagreed on many matters arising from the Bill, but she always made her case most ably, if I may say that without being misunderstood, and I gladly pay tribute to her very considerable abilities.
Although they are not all here, I should like to say to noble Lords opposite how grateful I am to them in the main for their great help in getting through what has been a very large number of amendments. Again, although he is not here, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the way he helped us to get through a very complex, difficult sector. I hope he will feel it enabled him to get a long way along the road, either to where he wished to be or to where one day he hopes we will be. Likewise the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Again, he is not here, but he took a complicated sector and put it together in a way that was most constructive.
1014
The noble Baroness, Lady David, was always very much to the point. We usually disagreed, as we seem to do on so many things, but she always made her case very powerfully. Noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, successfully moved amendments which I am sure helped to make the Bill a better Bill.
I should like to thank, on my own side of the House, my noble friend Lord Hylton, who is not here. We disagreed down the line, time and again, but his points were always put very fairly. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, moved a very important amendment which we were glad to accept at the end. My noble friend Lord Sandford's contributions were always of immeasurable value. I also want to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Faith-full, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Perhaps last, but certainly not least—in fact, almost "most"—I want to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Mowbray, who was of immense value to me all the way through, and, indeed, to the whole of the passing of this Bill. I am deeply grateful to him, and I welcome the opportunity to say so as sincerely as I know how. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead, who also helped out.
I am not going to spell out again or even summarise all the provisions in the Bill. It is a far-reaching and radical Bill. The right to buy shorthold, the tenants' charters, ending the old controlled tenancies are, in my submission, great steps forward in the context of housing. We have tried to protect and to extend the rights of individuals, to make a real attempt to preserve and revive the private rented sector and to give help to those who need it most. It is with no inconsiderable pride that I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
10.23 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I want to start by thanking the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the very nice things he said about me personally, and also about my colleagues. I should like

1015
to reciprocate by saying how courteous we found him all the way through. He kept his cool extremely well and was as helpful as he was able to be, which was not all that helpful on the substance of the Bill. But he always performed his task in a pleasant manner and with a smile, and while one had to realise that really one was not getting very much, the cover was extremely nice. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, also played a great part in this Bill and was always very courteous. I do not think I can possibly emulate or even equal the Minister in going through a list of names. I would only say that I am very pleased to see the right reverend Prelate here this evening; he has been present so much and has played an extremely active part in the whole of the Bill.
When I come to speak to the Bill itself I am afraid the mood has to change, because I do not feel the same towards the Bill as I do towards the Minister and his colleagues. It is most fortunate that I do not; otherwise there would occur some sort of Greek tragedy very much greater than occurred at the beginning of this afternoon. At Second Reading I pointed out that major amendments were required if the Bill were not to be a monument to moral and social irresponsibility. The Bill has now passed through Committee, Report and Third Reading, and a great many amendments have been made. I should say that there have probably been about 200 amendments in this House alone; the Minister says that there were even more than that. Some important improvements have been made. For example, the discretion to local authorities to designate rural areas, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is an extremely important step forward. There is also the limitation on the Secretary of State's draconian powers; the amendment now puts a duty on the Secretary of State to give reasons for his actions.
There is also what I would call the very sensible compromise on windfall gains through the two-year option scheme—the scheme which we and many other noble Lords in different parts of the House viewed in various ways, ranging from complete animosity towards it to a feeling of considerable unease. One sensed that feeling coming from different areas of the Government Benches as well. The amend
1016
ment that is now in the Bill certainly helps to mitigate some of these things. There is of course the option mortgage extension which was moved by the Liberal Party in this House.
Finally, there is what I consider to he probably the most important of the amendments put into the Bill by your Lordships' House—that concerned with the exclusion relating to houses specially designed or adapted for elderly people. As we are all aware, that was the subject of our preliminary debate, the rather large curtain-raiser this afternoon to the Third Reading.
It is extremely important that these amendments—and there is not a tremendous number, if one considers them in the context of an enormous Bill of this kind —should remain in the Bill, should be accepted by the other place, should come back here as part of the Bill, and later become part of the statute. So far as the elderly are concerned, I feel that your Lordships would resist any attempt to change this provision, or take it out, in another place, since there was strong feeling about it in all parts of the House from noble Lords temporal as well as spiritual.
I must also mention the question of fire precautions in hostels. Although this proposal did not go as far as was wished by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and those who supported her, it was certainly an improvement on the Bill compared with when it first reached us. There has been a certain amount of give on service charges, although my noble friends, particularly Lord Strabolgi and Lord Janner who are most closely concerned with it, would consider that it was not sufficient.
Having said that, I must add that the Bill remains defective and dangerous in many aspects. There are quite insufficient safeguards on shortholds. There is a chance that with the proper safeguards the shortholds could be the means of finding more property for rent and of encouraging people to rent out their property. The warlike resistance of the Government towards accepting any of the really fundamental safeguards makes that whole area of the Bill very different from what it should be. For instance, again this afternoon we saw an absolute resistance towards accepting the proposal

1017
regarding the sitting tenant having first refusal. I am not suggesting that the Minister himself thinks up all the reasons for resistance that were given, but those reasons, as well as the reasons given in another place, do not really cut any ice at all. They were quite trivial and extremely unconvincing.
Then we had the formula for the steep rent rises for private tenants and the phasing cut from three years to two years. The opportunities for steep rises or increases in rent at a time of high inflation in this country really does not make economic or social sense. It is going to cause hardship to a great many people, and it is not going to help the economy of the country at all. Then there was what I feel was the completely insensitive approach to the decontrol of controlled tenancies. We tried to let them erode themselves, to disappear through natural wastage, but this was turned down. I then moved an amendment, which was originally down in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, to make sure that at least they reached a standard fit for human habitation before they were decontrolled; but that, again, failed.
Then there was the failure to end the medieval instrument of distraint, which takes us back centuries and should not be in a Housing Bill that is looking forward to the 'eighties. Then there were the completely inadequate provisions to encourage mobility through the refusal to accept our amendments on those and on allocations. Then again there was the refusal to accept any amendment which would have dealt with the problem which we all feel, right across the House—the problem of the number of houses which are boarded up and are not used as short lets while they are waiting to be rehabilitated by local authorities. There are, of course, a great many more matters. I would hate the noble Lord the Minister to think that that was the end of my list, but as it is late tonight I will not go through all the omissions from, or bad commissions in, this Bill.
On the key part of the Bill—the right of council tenants to buy—the Government have been so astonishingly doctrinaire and rigid it is almost unbelievable, except that one sees it written into the Bill. Of course there is a case for the sale of council houses, and a great many
1018
authorities have been operating it for a long time. Where it is possible and people want to buy their houses, then there should not be any obstacle so long as it fits in with the local authorities' structure and the resources that they have. But the way in which it is done in this Bill is a complete imposition on local authorities. There is no respect for local circumstances, no respect for the impact on the supply of lettings to those who can afford only to rent—and this is at a time when new house construction, and therefore the supply of lettings, is at its lowest level since the 1940s.
We saw today a report of the Commons Select Committee on Housing. The most recent White Paper forecast a total reduction in public expenditure of £2,800 million, which is about 4 per cent., between the period 1979–80 and 1983–84. Of that, £2,582 million, which is more than 92 per cent., will come from cuts in the housing programme. By 1985, nearly half a million fewer flats and houses will have been built than was expected in the 1977 Green Paper. The report of the Commons Select Committee on the Environment expects the number of housing starts in the public sector to fall to no more than 31,000 in 1983–84, and suggests that the total could be even lower than that; and the private sector starts this year are now running at about 100,000 units only.
However, the most extraordinary aspect about this report—and this is extremely relevant to a Housing Bill which we are in the process of seeing (reluctantly, so far as we are concerned) pulled through the legislative procedure —is that the cuts have been carried out in secret. The Secretary of State for the Environment did not give evidence. The committee is scathing about his secrecy, and as the Guardian says, it needed to be; not even the basic information has been provided. The Times also commented on the committee and on the committee's censure on the Government, and says that no other programme comparable to housing has been accompanied by so little information. This is at a time—and it should cause a great deal of unease among everybody—when the housing programme has been cut so very greatly; when inflation is so high; and the Select Committee, with incidentally a majority of Conservatives on that com

1019
mittee—quite naturally with a Conservative Government, and the Conservatives outnumber the Labour Members by six to five—reported unanimously. It was a report of evasion and secrecy in the whole of our housing field and what is projected for the future.
This, I believe, is a very serious matter. If we put the Bill in that context, then I think the drawbacks thereafter, the things that are worrying to so many of us, become even starker in their worry and their concern. Here we are, in the midst of a grave economic crisis, a time when today the CBI said that morale was at its lowest ebb among manufacturing industry, and we have a Government that is so doctrinaire about this that the right to buy has to override everything; shortholds without proper safeguards take precedence. It does not seem to me to have any real relevance to so many of the things that we are concerned with and that are important both to our economy and to our national life if we are to get on our feet again.
This Bill is really a Bill which is a doctored dogma. There are, it is true—and I will be fair; I said so at the beginning—some good aspects of it. I have seen through this House, and been connected with, a number of Housing Bills. I admit readily that none of them has ever been perfect; I do not think there is any piece of legislation that has been. Most of them are complex. They are complicated. But I do not think I have ever had anything to do with a Housing Bill that has been so bad as this one in its whole construction, policy, and purpose—this is not to do with the individuals who are dealing with it at the moment—and which has had so little wholehearted support.
During the process of this Bill, with the exception of the president of the ADC, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the Minister has really received very little support from his own side, let alone anywhere else. Although there is a Conservative in-built majority, and always has been, in this House, it is significant that the voting from the Opposition and those on the Liberal Benches, and those who joined us, particularly on many of the very important issues, was much higher than it has been on many other
1020
Bills. I would remind your Lordships that when we had a debate on clause stand part on shortholds, the voting was 98 to 90, which is quite amazing with a Conservative Government in this House.
I feel sorry for the Minister, though I do not think he will need me to feel sorry for him, because he has been landed with a Bill of this sort. The drawbacks to it are far greater than its advantages. It is a great pity. It has all the marks of not only being doctrinaire but of having been rushed through in a very mixed-up sort of way, so that it has had in so many ways the worst of all worlds. It would have been nice to be able to speed something off with some feeling that it had created something good or was doing something good. I am afraid that it is very difficult to find many good things to say—apart from the good intentions which I do not doubt underlie a great deal of it. I am sorry, but I am afraid that even the best of intentions cannot turn this Bill from a bad Bill into a good one.
10.40 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I should like to join in the words of congratulations personally made to the noble Lord the Minister for the way he has conducted the Bill through your Lordships' House, and, indeed, for the very remarkable support and considerable devotion which his noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton has given to him during the passage of the Bill. I probably ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, most of all because he was the noble Lord who accepted one of my amendments as drawn. My Liberal colleagues on Leeds city council used to tell me that Lord Bellwin, when he was a mere councillor, as leader of the Conservatives there was very helpful and cooperative. Now, I would not go quite that far, but I think he is well on the way to being helpful and co-operative and, with a few more Bills of this nature, he might become really helpful and cooperative.
I would say that he has gone out of his way to try to explain the inexplicable and has tried very warmly to justify the unjustifiable in a very reasonable and very patient way. He has been very helpful, in my opinion, on some of the more difficult and technical matters in this

1021
Bill. Many of them have been very difficult and very technical. And it is quite apparent that he is a master of the subject of housing. Speaking possibly a little subjectively, I feel that in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, local government has proved to be a very good grounding for your Lordships' House. I was going to thank the noble Lord for the graceful and charming tributes he made to the contributions from the Liberal Benches, but since he has said nothing about that, I am going to thank the noble Lord the Minister for accepting some of the smaller but useful amendments that have been moved from these Benches.
I suppose that we on these Benches do not need any thanks since the Government have gracefully accepted the substantial amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Banks on option mortgages. It will make a very great number of elderly and less-well-off people very happy; and I see that the Financial Times today says that this was a rare victory for the Liberal Party—so it will also make quite a lot more Liberals very happy. The noble Lord therefore must feel that he has spread a little happiness around the Palace of Westminster and elsewhere.
I am sorry that he was not able to accept some of the amendments put down by me and by other noble Lords about restricting the right to buy in rural areas. I feel that in five or ten years' time the Government will find that this has been a mistake. It was significant, I thought, that many noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and on the Government side seemed to take the same view as I and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, took about amendments of this kind. I hope very fervently but without much optimism that the amendment dealing with the exemption of old persons' accommodation which has been widely hailed as a victory for commonsense will be accepted in another place and will not be brought back to your Lordships' House in an amended form.
I myself put forward an amendment for giving pre-emption for old persons' accommodation and, on reflection, I decided that the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was a better and more effective amendment than mine which was based on pre-emption. I hope that the Government are not going to think that the
1022
granting of pre-emption, though it is better than nothing, would be nearly as good as the amendment that this House passed on Report stage, because I just do not think it is practical politics to consider the probability that local authorities in 10 years' time will be in a position to repurchase the many thousands of homes for the elderly which would otherwise be lost to the elderly because they were specially designed or adapted for the purpose of old people's dwellings. I hope and believe that, in spite of what happened in your Lordships' House today, wiser counsels will prevail and that the Government will accept the amendment that your Lordships passed on Report stage.
I also believe that the amendment requiring the Secretary of State to give the reasons when he intervenes in the affairs of housing authorities is a very good amendment and should be accepted. I, as a person who has spent most of my life in local government, believe that the continual erosion of the liberty of local government is a very serious matter indeed. It has been said that when Adolph Hitler wanted to destroy democracy he first destroyed local government. I would not in any way suggest that this Government are set on that kind of course. But we are moving very rapidly from a partnership between local government and central Government to local government being an agency of central Government. This to me, as a local government person, is very bad and unhealthy and is a matter that I suspect is going to be continued; and this erosion is going to be continued when we reach the Local Government Bill in your Lordships' House.
One of the great faults in the Bill was that it gave the Secretary of State almost unfettered powers to interfere with locally-made decisions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the old people's amendment is probably the most important; but an amendment was accepted to fetter the Secretary of State's right to interfere. Though he still has the right to interfere, the amendment as accepted made him explain why he was interfering. That is a very important amendment if we believe in local democracy, and f believe very firmly in local democracy. I think that was perhaps the most important amendment from that point of view.

1023
Again I say that this is the first major Bill that I have been engaged in; I have enjoyed very much the procedure of this Bill, and have become exhausted. I have felt that attempts have been made, within the limits that the noble Lord the Minister was allowed, to meet the criticisms made from these Benches and Opposition Benches generally. I should like to say a warm word of congratulation to him and his noble colleagues for the way that they have conducted the Bill through your Lordships' House.
10.48 p.m.
The Lord BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, before we send this Bill on its way, I should like to add a word from these Benches. On the Second Reading, I observed that this was an extremely complicated and technical Bill, but that beneath all this verbiage there lay the most important things of human rights and human happiness. Therefore, we owe a great debt to those who have carried us through the complexities of this Bill.
I should like to express gratitude, first, to the noble Lords, Lord Bellwin and Lord Mowbray, for the lucidity with which they have explained the Bill, and for the courtesy that they have shown to all of us who have been concerned with it. I would also add my thanks to those on the Opposition Benches who have brought such illumination: I think especially of the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady David, and the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Evans of Claughton. It is as a result of their knowledge and their insight that the incomprehensible has been made at least partly comprehensible to those of us who have not the training that a Bill like this requires if one is to understand fully all that it implies.
I hope that the Government will appreciate that there are many of us—among whom I count myself—who approve and accept the main thrust of this Bill, but who also see that, when one is introducing new principles and new ideas, one must also very carefully examine all the consequences. If some of us have been concerned with amendments which have not commended themselves to the Government, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to accept that we have moved these amendments because we want to improve a Bill
1024
of which we fundamentally approve. This is particularly true in my view, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said, of the clause which was added to Schedule 1 concerning houses and accommodation, either built specially or specially adapted for old people.
It has been suggested to me that what I said at the Report stage on 21st July indicated that I thought that, if this was not carried, then a great many old people would be immediately in peril. I have read what I said and I can see that that interpretation could have been put on what I said; but of course I was thinking in a much wider and longer-term manner, believing that if it is possible for old people to buy these specially constructed houses then in the course of time they will eventually go out of the use for which they were first intended. Therefore I attach the greatest importance to this clause, and the worry I had about the matters which concerned this House earlier today was the suggestion that our amendment might be disregarded. I very much hope that will not be the case and that the amendment will be accepted, because I agree with many noble Lords that it is of very great importance.
I see also another broad-term danger about this Bill. It may be that as a result of passing it we might believe that we have solved the housing problem. When Cardinal Hume and I spoke at the beginning of May about this problem, we said there was a general complacency about the housing situation and that many people believed it no longer existed. Maybe that sentiment will be strengthened because we have a new Housing Act on the statute book; but when this Bill becomes an Act there will still be nearly 1 million families on the waiting lists of housing authorities, and there will still be thousands of people in London and other great cities who have nowhere to lay their heads and with no homes, who are sleeping rough or who may be, in the main, accommodated by voluntary associations. There will still be that jungle of regulations which brings despair to those who try to do something constructive. Above all, there will still be that terrible social problem of what is to happen to our great cities when the housing situation becomes so expensive and so difficult that, as I said earlier, they

1025
become deserts with no people living in them at all.
So I hope that this Bill, when it becomes law, will not just be food for those who feel self-satisfied—I do not suggest in any way that such is the case so far as the Government are concerned—but that it will rather be a spur to us to see that this is the great social problem of our day and that we must do everything that we can to solve it.
10.53 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on his mastery of this Bill and marvel at the tenacity of the Labour Opposition. I expressed the hope when we started that we might be able to enlarge the area of bipartisan approach to housing, but I think that the noble Baroness who is just leaving the Chamber has seen to it that we did no such thing.
Ten days ago The Times reported that this Bill was approaching the statute book almost unamended. It is interesting to note how wrong the press can be! As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, there have been innumerable substantial amendments and scores of useful minor ones, as a result of which the Bill is going on to the statute book considerably amended and considerably improved.
I am nevertheless grateful that it emerges very much in its broad original form in respect of Parts I and II, because I believe that the right to buy, which is perhaps the predominant element of the whole Bill, will confer on council tenants an individual choice which very large numbers of them are eagerly looking forward to exercising, and an individual sense of responsibility, which many of them are well capable of shouldering, and which they look forward to exercising. It will also confer a great deal more mobility.
The shorthold will, I am sure, have the very desirable effect of bringing onto the market, and making accessible, a large quantity of housing stock which is there in existence, but at the moment is not available for large numbers of tenants who would like to occupy it. So for those reasons, I particularly welcome the passage of this Bill onto the statute book.
10.55 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I believe that this Bill leaves your Lordships' House a very much better Bill than when it first reached us, although there is still plenty of room for improvement. If—and it is a big "if"—the other place accepts your Lordships' extremely worthwhile amendments to Part I of the Bill, the part concerning council tenants' right to buy, then I do not doubt that Part I will have a beneficial effect overall, not only so far as purchasers are concerned, but also from the local authorities' point of view. It is interesting in this context to note that the Greater London Council estimates an annual surplus from existing council house sales of £2½ million.
Where I think the Government are being wildly optimistic is in their assumption that this part of the Bill will aid mobility of labour. I tried to emphasise this fallacy on Second Reading, and was interested to note that in the Observer last Sunday it was pointed out, in connection with the Prime Minister's suggestion that unemployed people should be prepared to move house in order to get a better job, that in Berkshire high-priced private housing and lack of vacant council accommodation mean that it is virtually impossible for a skilled man from a depressed area to move South. The first and second letters in yesterday's Daily Telegraph also drew attention to the Government's mathematical miscalculations in this regard.
I am extremely pleased that the Government accept the principle of coterminous leases, where local authority flats are sold. I have it on expert professional authority that this step will save the country millions of pounds in the future, so this noble House can certainly give itself a collective pat on the back here. I am afraid that I am less sanguine about the effects of Parts II and III of the Bill, which deal with private sector tenancies. I know that, in theory, the Government want to "arrest the decline of the private rented sector "—to quote the words in the Conservative election manifesto—but the various ways in which private landlords are hamstrung in this Bill, by the extraordinary Clauses 80, 81 and 82, for example, do not give much practical evidence of the Government's will in this

1027
matter. Another snag is the retention of phasing, which, in an inflationary age, means that the rent received by the landlord is always lower than the fair rent. A rent which is lower than the fair rent is by definition unfair and is certainly no incentive to landlords to let.
A further snag is that, unlike council tenants and owner-occupiers, private tenants are unique in getting no subsidy or tax relief, so that it is usually a poor financial proposition for both owner and tenant. All this is a very great shame, especially when one thinks of the great number of lonely widows in this country —given that, statistically, women live seven years longer than men—who would like nothing better than to invest their savings in rented residential property, where they could take a personal interest in their tenants, and even baby-sit for them on occasion, instead of investing in impersonal unit trusts, investment trusts or Government securities. But as things stand, no financial adviser worth his salt would recommend a widow to invest in residential property for letting in present circumstances. I should like to conclude by joining other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his great courtesy, his patience, his helpfulness and his good humour in coping with this marathon of a Bill.
11 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I have taken part in the debates on this Bill from the Second Reading onwards but have particularly avoided intervening in the Third Reading until now because I have tried at all stages to concentrate on the basic principles upon which the Bill has been drawn. I believe that tonight we are facing a very serious situation. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, whom I congratulate—along with his officials and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, too—has been excellent, patient and accommodating in every little detail. But I found that every time we came to the principles embodied in the Bill the noble Lord the Minister refused to meet the arguments. Time after time he referred either to the Conservative election manifesto, or to there being arguments on both sides, or he studiously ignored the arguments. And on one occasion he
1028
put them aside as simply contained in a political speech.
Today we know why. As my noble friend Lady Birk has pointed out, all has now been revealed by the Select Committee of another place. I believe that that revelation has demonstrated that this Government have deliberately and scandalously deceived both Parliament and the British public by refusing to give the relevant details upon which we should have been debating this Bill. Yet during every stage of this Bill, in both Houses, the Department of the Environment had the statistics and the consequent projections, and suppressed them. Now the Select Committee has exposed them. The Minister, if I may say so to him, can no longer use the excuse that I am making a political speech for, as my noble friend Lady Birk has pointed out, the findings of that Select Committee were unanimous. And there were six Conservatives to five members of the Labour Party upon it.
What is the relevance of that Select Committee to this Bill? It forecasts that by 1985, as my noble friend has pointed out, there will be a shortage of nearly half a million houses. It demonstrates, or projects, that the cuts of this Government in their housing allocations over the next four years will be 48 per cent. It calculates that council house building will be down to 31,000, or less, by 1984. It also points out that, whereas the subsidies to council house tenants are being cut back to £600 million, or less—or considerably less according to the forecast—the hidden subsidy of mortgage tax relief is standing at a figure around £1,500 million. These are the figures and the projections that the noble Lord the Minister's Secretary of State refused to give to the Select Committee and which he or his department—I am not attacking him personally—kept away from Parliament, away from the public and away from the press during the very time that we were debating this Bill.
May I ask him whether he has looked at the public expenditure White Paper. If he has, where are the figures for public expenditure on housing in 1981, 1982 and 1983? So far as I can discover, unless I am blind, there are blank spaces there. And if we recall the universally accepted Housing Finance Review of 1977, which estimated that there would be a demand of 300,000 houses or housing units per year up to the year 1986, where does that leave

1029
us and where does it leave this Government in their provision of housing over the next few years? What does this Bill do to meet that situation which has been secreted until today`? And yet this year —again according to the Select Committee —if we put together both the public and the private new building to be started this year, it amounts to no more than at the most 150,000—just 50 per cent. of what is estimated to be the need. What are the Government saying about this in their Housing Bill? We have yet to hear.
So far as I can see, the effect of this Bill which not I but the Conservative dominated Select Committee has reported, is the situation which is facing this Government and facing us all in this country so far as homes are concerned. The effect of this Bill will inevitably be to increase the number of the homeless, to lengthen the housing waiting lists, to enforce more house-sharing and to increase very rapidly the price of housing way above what it is today.
Let me say finally to the Minister that he knows, although I do not believe that he has ever met this argument, that my objection to this Bill from the start has been on a matter of principle. I refuse to accept the slogan of the "right to buy" and I repeat that this Bill is based upon the compulsion to sell. It will reduce the housing accommodation to let in the public sector; it will endanger, particularly if what we heard earlier today proves to be correct, the accommodation available to the elderly; it will handicap what members of the Minister's Government have been preaching over the last two weeks —that is, the necessity for mobility of labour, the injunction to the unemployed to move from where they live to other parts of the country. That will be handicapped by this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has pointed out and as many of us have tried to get through to the Government throughout the discussions on this Bill, it will undermine the character of the rural communities on which much of Britain's rich culture is based.
I believe that the Bill has been improved in this House, but it is still a bad Bill. It is a bad Bill for the ecomonic and social health of our nation; it is a bad Bill when it leaves this House. If in another place, as we have been warned, the improvements that have been made in this House are
1030
reversed, then I can assure the Minister and the House that there will be a deep and widespread resentment throughout our country.
11.9 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I must say that when I tried very briefly to make a few courteous winding-up notes on this Bill I did not expect that the response would be the blatant political diatribes that we have had to listen to from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and I am very sad indeed that I have to wind up this whole thing on such a sour note. It certainly was not my intention to do so, but when the noble Baroness and the noble Lord read their speeches in Hansard tomorrow I think they will take the significance and the rectitude of what I have just said.
The fact is that I attempted merely to pay courtesies which I felt I wanted to pay in tribute to those who had helped to move the Bill on, and I thought that was all that one did in moving the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I have learned a lesson; I have learned many lessons, and this is another one. Another time I shall think carefully before I move the Motion in that way. I am not going to rise to the bait, as might be expected. I will just say very briefly two or three things which I think ought to be said.
The fact is that it ill becomes spokesmen of the Labour Party to talk to us, after some 15 months in office, on housing, when they had the most appalling record in housing that this country has ever seen over a period of five years; when the number of dwellings was cut in a dramatic way regardless of the situation as it was then; when the whole of housing was deteriorating on a scale almost beyond belief. These people have the effrontery to come here and, because they do not like it, tell us that we are bringing forth a Bill that is adverse to housing as a whole. I refuse to accept just about everything that they have said about it. I am sorry to respond in that way, and I will not pick up the bait and go into the details of each point made. I would dearly like to, and I am sure there will be other opportunities when I shall.
May I, in conclusion, say to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that I feel I owe an apology to him and to his colleagues on

1031
the Liberal Benches. I did say that mentioning names was fraught with the danger of omission, and I am sorry that I omitted to pay tribute, because at all times he and his colleagues were most helpful, and even when they differed with us, it was done in a most courteous way. Likewise, may I say to the right reverend Prelate that I was appreciative of what he said. It is true that the Bill does not solve the housing problem. Who could claim that any one Bill ever could, that the whole housing situation can be solved just like that? I, least of all, would make such a claim. This is only a moving on stage in an attempt to take us further forward. We do recognise all the difficulties. Finally, may I say, "thank you" to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who has been so constructive and helpful to me during the passage of this Bill.
I feel very badly about what was said at the end of the whole proceedings, but I still believe, with every bit as much conviction as noble Lords opposite and anywhere in this House, that this is a fine Bill which takes us a lot further down the road of getting the individuals who live in the houses of this country having the rights that many of us want to see, and that shortly we are going to see.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.