Lords Sitting of 28 April 1983

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Airline Permits
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state how far the Department of Trade has been able to complete its stated intention of replacing the 17 open-ended airline operating permits by new ones including the relevant tariff changes; how many remain outstanding and whether these are for scheduled passenger or cargo services.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, all the 17 open-ended permits to which the noble Baroness refers have now been replaced by new permits which require the airlines to apply tariffs which have been approved by the aeronautical authorities of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as this first surfaced some six months ago—last October—may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is aware how appreciative I am of that which he has done, and that I would like to say thank you? Moving on from there, may I ask the noble Lord whether the fact that he has been able to do this will make it easier for airlines, travel agents and travellers to find out what these approved fares now are? If the answer to that question is yes, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will lend his support to a request that the airlines and travel agents unite on this particular aspect?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the remarks in the first part of her supplementary question. So far as the second part of her question is concerned, the answer is, yes—this does make it clear that the approved fares must be charged. We give every support to the airlines and to the organisations which represent them, to encourage them to observe the proper scheduled and approved fares.

Servicemen's Graves Overseas: Visits
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the possibility of assistance to the
1042
next of kin, other than those bereaved in the Falklands campaign, to visit the graves of servicemen buried overseas, including those who died before 1967.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have no plans to reconsider offering visits at public expense to servicemen's graves overseas to the next of kin of such servicemen buried before the current arrangements were introduced in 1967.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, whether the Government are totally insensitive to the feelings of many families who lost their next of kin in other wars? Although they may have accepted with sadness the 1967 arrangements, which were not retrospective, a new situation has now arisen with the Falklands arrangements—arrangements which were quite rightly made, in my view. Will the Government not look at this matter again with some sensitivity and sympathy for the sake of people who feel equally bereaved, wherever their loved ones were killed and whatever may have been the date when this happened?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that all of us share the sympathy which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has expressed for those who died in all the wars—and, of course, the sacrifice of those who died in the last war was just as great as that of those who died in the Falklands. I know that this sacrifice remains keenly felt by many; and, of course, the Government would like to be able to offer a visit at public expense to all the close relatives of servicemen buried overseas. The simple fact is that this is a matter of scale and of practicalities. So far as the scale is concerned, there are just too many people involved to make it a feasible proposition.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, are there not other priorities which those who speak for war widows would put before that suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—such as eliminating the disparity in treatment of war widows between those who lost their husbands before and those who lost them after 1973?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if my noble friend is turning the Question into one about war pensions, which I believe may be the tone of what he has said, then that is another matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that this was a question of scale and cost. Will the noble Lord be good enough to tell the House what is the scale and cost? What are the numbers involved, bearing in mind that only a percentage of the total number of widows would be able to go and that the number of widows of the first world war must be very small indeed by now? Will the noble Lord be good enough to convey the feeling of the whole House to his right honourable friend, that the Government should introduce a phased scheme, based possibly on age, to enable those widows who wish to do so to visit the graves of their late husbands?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as an illustration, there are about 172,000 identified graves of British servicemen buried overseas from the second world war alone. I believe it to be a reasonable assumption that the vast majority would have at least one surviving close relative—that is, one defined as a widow, parent, brother, sister or child—who might wish to take up the offer of a visit. Also, there are currently more than 65,000 war widows' pensions in payment. It is estimated that more than 60,000 of these relate to servicemen who died before the current arrangements for visits were introduced in 1967.
So far as the phasing of visits is concerned, I am afraid this would not significantly ease the difficulties involved. Unless everybody concerned was offered a visit within a reasonable time-scale, there would inevitably be charges of injustice. I can see no way of overcoming the problem of the sheer scale of the task. Stretching the visits over a period of a few years would not do so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that three precedents have been set in respect of the Falkland Islands? One is the awarding of medals posthumously, other than the Victoria Cross and the George Cross; the second is the bringing back of the bodies of the fallen; and the third is the visits of the nearest and dearest to the graves of their soldier or sailor relations. Bearing in mind these precedents, how much would the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, cost? The figure one has seen put about is something between £10 million and £30 million. Is my noble friend not aware that that is an average-to-small cost over-run on any weapons procurement programme?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we do not have an estimate of the cost, but I can say that it would be a very large sum. But I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take note of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Onslow.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those Members of your Lordships' House who at some time or other were responsible for the care and maintenance of war graves, either at the War Office or the Ministry of Defence, are aware that these war graves are spread all over the world, and that some would be quite inaccessible? On the other hand, the war graves in the European area are frequently visited by relatives of those who passed away, and any more who wished to go there would be welcome.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for his intervention. I am aware of the number of visits made to the European cemeteries. They are, of course, beautifully looked after, most wonderfully looked after, by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I think the noble Lord has made my point about the practicality of visits in the case of, for example, Burma, as well as, if not better than, I did.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that a woman whose husband was killed in Burma has a less right to visit her husband's grave than a woman whose husband is buried in France?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I am certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that the practicalities of a visit to Burma are far more complicated than the practicalities of a visit to, for example, Ostend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government, without commitment, would consider discussing this matter with probably the best informed voluntary organisation apropos these matters—the Royal British Legion? If they were to discuss this matter with the Royal British Legion I am sure they would get full co-operation and sensible guidance in this situation.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has in the past—and I am certain he will be in the future—been in touch with all the bodies interested in this matter.
Lord Walston: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord to say that the Government have made no calculation of the cost and can give no figures as to what the cost would be, how is it possible to say that the cost will be too much and cannot be afforded?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I gave some indication of the figures involved so far as numbers are concerned. We are unable to say, without disproportionate effort, how many of the approximately 65,000 war widows' pensions relate to the second world war. The figure of 55,000 which has been quoted could be right. Of the United Kingdom servicemen who lost their lives during the second world war, about 36 per cent.—that is, a figure of 139,112—were missing and have been commemorated only on memorials. On the basis of this ratio one might be talking of over 41,000 widows, and we could not ignore the other close relatives who could claim equal justification for a visit. So the question of costing it is extremely difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, some of the graves are comparatively close to hand and others are a lot farther away. So it is not a question of simple mathematics.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider that there are other relatives as well as widows? I myself have two half-brothers buried overseas, either of whom might have been in my place today had they survived, who were killed in the first world war.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when the original arrangements were made—that is to say, the 1967 arrangements—the then Under-Secretary of State of Defence for the Army said that the new arrangements would not be retrospective and that in cases of impracticability—and in some cases it would be impossible—it would not necessarily be possible to arrange visits.

Argentine Warships: Payment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Argentine Government has now paid Williams and Glyn's Bank over £3.8 million, the cost of two destroyers, sister ships of HMS "Sheffield", fitted with Exocet missiles, built by Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness, and, if not, whether and when the Export Credits Guarantee Department is required to compensate the bank at the taxpayers' expense.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the ships in question were ordered in 1969 and delivered in 1975. The final instalment of £3.8 million was paid in 1982. Apart from a sum of £7,000 in respect of interest, no cost was incurred by ECGD. No cost to the taxpayer is involved.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister is not this an extraordinary situation, that as late as 1975 a licence was granted for export of this warship to Argentina, when the White Paper was already indicating that there was a danger of invasion by Argentina? Will the Government consider ending this anarchic state of the arms traffic by initiating action to refrain from providing arms to any country which is regarded as repressive by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and finally providing arms only to United Nations peacekeeping forces?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I need to remind the noble Lord that when the ships were ordered in 1969 there was a Labour Government in office. It is with equal diffidence that I have to remind him that when they were delivered in 1975 another Labour Government was in office. I am not in any way criticising either of those Governments, but I do not think I am expected to answer for the actions they took during their periods of administration. The remaining questions asked by the noble Lord are not related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, does not the noble Lord consider that they ought to improve on the actions of the Labour Government?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I think that the important point is that there is now an absolute ban on the export of arms from this country to the Argentine.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of that answer, and the continual answers of the Minister's noble friend, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, that there is an absolute ban, how does he equate that with the continued manufacture of parts of warships in this country to be sent to third countries who are now supplying the Argentine with replacements for the armaments that they lost 12 months ago?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that issue has been discussed in your Lordships' House and in another place on many an occasion. I have nothing to add to what has already been said. The deliveries to which the noble Lord refers were made under existing contracts. The exports to the Argentine were made by third countries. We have expressed both publicly and privately our regret that those exports should be made to the Argentine.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that when, under previous Governments, certain agreements were made there was a very different régime in charge in Argentina? The situation has changed since, as he well knows. Will the Minister recognise the need for some consistency and make a policy known on the matter of the export of arms? Although he says there is a ban on exports from this country, he must be aware that machinery and parts do get sent to Europe to become parts of vehicles and ships which go to the Argentine. Having regard to the presence of British troops in the Falklands, will the noble Lord consider whether that is to our disadvantage in the near future; not least, of course, with the workings of the IMF which has recently, with Government support, encouraged more financial aid for the Argentine régime?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's long list of supplementary questions—all and every one—are not related to the Question on the Order Paper, which refers to two ships which were ordered in 1969 and inquires whether any loss was incurred either by the ECGD or by the Government. I have answered that question fully and completely.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no-one has asked him to concern himself with the activities of previous Labour Governments? He has not been asked to do that. When certain conditions were forced upon a Labour Government that Government took the appropriate action in the interests of the country. Therefore, we do not ask the noble Lord, with all his ability, to reply for the Labour Government; he has enough to do in replying for the Conservative Government. Does he not agree that the facts speak for themselves?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the facts speak for themselves. Not I nor even Atlas could take on the task of supporting an explanation of all the actions that occurred under a Labour Administration.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Secretary of State say when either of these two ships was last in a British port for refitting? Was it not in January 1982 at Portsmouth?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am not aware of that. So far as my information goes, the ships were delivered in 1975. Whether they made any later visit to this country I do not know and cannot answer.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not illogical for the Government to ban the export of arms to the Argentine—as they have done—but to permit British

1047
banks to supply credit to the Argentine with which they purchase arms elsewhere?
Lord Cockfield: That, my Lords, is also a question which has been dealt with on numerous occasions in your Lordships' House. The reasons for the lifting of the financial sanctions have been explained not only here but also in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

British Industry: Competitiveness
3.25 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what in percentage terms was the improvement in competitiveness obtained by British Industry in the last period for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the most recent figures show an improvement of 15 per cent. in the cost competitiveness of British industry in the third quarter of 1982, compared with the first quarter in 1981.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, do not these encouraging figures confirm and endorse the views of the CBI that our manufacturing economy is now healthily on the move?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I believe that they do; but, on the other hand, I do not believe that there is any room for complacency. Competitiveness is more than just price competitiveness. It includes such things as liability for delivery and liability for the products themselves after they have been delivered. Those latter points are more difficult to measure quantitatively but there is considerable anecdotal evidence that they, too, are being improved.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is this not the sort of question to which one would expect as many answers as if one had inquired of accountants?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, that is not correct at all. The answer is given in the figures which I gave a moment ago.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that many of us are concerned about our competitiveness as a nation? If one took into account the cost of unemployment I doubt whether we are more competitive than we have been for a long time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite follow the gist of the noble Lord's supplementary question. The important thing in this context is to get British industry moving effectively in world export markets despite the very considerable difficulties of the world recession which industry has faced. I think that industry is achieving that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the very desirable improvement in the competitiveness of British industry the basic industries have also played their part? These basic industries play an essential role in the revival of the British economy and should be regarded in that sense.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, in general, quite right. However, we need to be careful not to support industries whose products are no longer required.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has there not been an encouraging improvement in capital investment? Therefore, would it not be logical that in the coming months and quarters there should be a further increase in productivity as this machinery comes into use? Would not this further increase our competitiveness in the export markets?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right that capital investment is now beginning to show a modest increase. Like him I too hope that these investments will shortly be bearing fruit.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that had a Labour Government been in power the CBI figures would have been headlined, "Two-thirds of British industry believes things will stay the same or get worse"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if a Labour Government had still been in power we would have been down the pan long ago.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does not the arrest of the decline in the volume of manufactured goods, and now the signs of modest growth in a static world market, prove that we are, overall, competitive for the first time in two decades? Those two decades were in the 1960s and 1970s when we lost half our world market share.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right. If one looks back as far as he does, the position then was perhaps even better than it is now.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the expression "down the pan". This is a new phrase to me which I do not understand. Can the noble Lord kindly explain in decent terms what it means?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the meaning of that expression did not appear to be lost on the noble Lord's friends.

Advanced Information Technology: The Alvey Report
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on advanced information technology: the Alvey Report.

County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for county courts to be treated as superior courts for the purposes of Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Matrimonial Homes Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [105] as printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 2, page 5, line 36, leave out "or interest".
2 Clause 2, page 5, line 38, leave out "or interest".
3 Clause 4, page 6, line 18, leave out "or interest".
4 Cluase 4, page 6, line 21, leave out "or interest".
5 Clause 4, page 6, line 27, leave out "or interest".
6 Clause 4, page 6, line 41, leave out "or interest".
7 Clause 5, page 7, line 16, leave out "or interest".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are seven amendments set down, but they are all the same. I am advised that I can both move and put them en bloc if the House agrees. They all serve the same purpose: to rectify a minor fault in the Bill as drafted. The Matrimonial Homes and Property Act 1981 deleted the words "or interest" from seven provisions in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. These deletions were overlooked when the present Bill was drafted, and this series of amendments serves to rectify that position. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these amendments en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
References are to Bill [107] as printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 2, page 3, line 12, after "under" insert "the following provisions of".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
1050
Amendment No. 1. It is a drafting amendment. It is necessary to bring the wording of Clause 2(4) of the Bill exactly into line with that of Section 25(4) of the Mental Health Act 1959, from which it is derived. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Schedule 4, page 119, line 22, at end insert—
"15. In section 128(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1959 for the words "this Act" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the Mental Health Act 1983".".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is an amendment which merely makes a necessary consequential change to Section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (which is not of itself being consolidated) to take account of the present Bill. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 4, page 123, line 42, at end insert—
"(d) in section 12(4) for the words "section 28 of the Mental Health Act 1959", "Part V" and "the said Act of 1959" there shall be substituted respectively the words "section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983", "Part III" and "the said Act of 1983";
(e) in paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 for the words from the beginning to "1959" there shall be substituted the words "A restriction direction which was given under section 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983".".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is an amendment which makes some necessary consequential changes to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 by replacing references to the Mental Health Act 1959 which appear in that Act with corresponding references to the present Bill. I thus beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [116] as printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 36, page 29, line 29, leave out first "a" and insert "the".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It is simply a printing correction. There is only one master in any one ship.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 70, page 43, line 28, leave out from beginning to "as" in line 29 and insert "shall be included among the Acts that may be cited".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is a drafting amendment to take account of Section 11(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983, which has been passed since the Bill was drafted. That section provides for the 1983 Act to be cited together with the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1981 as the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1983. The present amendment enables the present Bill, too, to be cited with those Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 2, page 47, line 10, leave out paragraph 5.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This amendment merely removes the transitional provision which is no longer required in the Bill now that the Criminal Justice Act 1982, to which it refers, has come into force. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this amendment would seem to be even less revolutionary than the other amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, and we have no objection to it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Litter Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee.
1052
Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Bellwin: Before the House moves onto the amendments, perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to say that, with regard to Clause 2, which was debated at such length on Tuesday last, the Government would like it to be known that they do not intend to replace Clause 2 in the Bill either in your Lordships' House or in another place. I felt that I should say that at the first opportunity so to do.
The Earl of Selkirk: I thank the noble Lord most warmly for making that statement this early on. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for doing so. I know that there were some genuine and sincere differences of opinion on this. I should like to express the hope that, whatever the future may be, the decision of this House will be shown to be wise and that it will be a success. I am confident that the Government will do their utmost to see that it is a success.
Baroness Birk: May I from these Benches thank the Minister very much for the statement he has made. I think that on this occasion the Government are absolutely right. The feeling in the House was clear. It is a great help and advantage to us all to know the Government's intentions at this stage.
Lord Evans of Claughton: From these Benches we should like to be associated with what has been said, and to thank the Minister for the generous statement that he has made.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("New ground for possession
. In Schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1980 after Ground 13, the following new Ground for possession shall be inserted—
"Ground 14
The dwelling-house has been occupied by spouses or former spouses or by a man and a woman living together as husband and wife and:

(a) either the spouses or the former spouses, or the man and the woman has ceased to live together as husband and wife, or either of the spouses or of the former spouses or the man or the woman has notified the landlord in the prescribed

1053
form that he or she no longer wishes to live with the other as husband and wife; and

(b) either the landlord requires possession of the dwelling-house in order to grant a secure tenancy of it to either of the spouses, former spouses, or the man or the woman or the landlord has provided or caused to be provided suitable alternative accommodation (the suitability of which is defined in Part II below) to either of the spouses, former spouses or the man or the woman.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been made necessary because since the Housing Act 1980 a problem has arisen relating to the powerlessness of local authorities to deal with a joint tenancy granted to two people who do not wish, or cannot continue, to live together. The amendment would enable local authorities to take possession proceedings where a relationship has broken down. It would allow local authorities to transfer tenancies to one of the parties or, if there was violence, to rehouse the woman elsewhere for her own protection. It would also protect the rights of both married and cohabiting couples, and ensure that neither party was left homeless as a result of relationship breakdown.
Our amendment would, to a great extent, put the situation for couples who no longer wish to live together back to what it was before the Housing Act 1980. As we are well aware, before the Act a local authority could take back a council tenancy in a situation where a couple did not want to live together, and offer alternative accommodation to the partner who they decided was in greatest need. Alternatively, the local authority could, if she wished to remain in the home, transfer the tenancy into the woman's name solely and the man then no longer had the right to live there. But since the Act, which gave security of tenure to council tenants, local authorities no longer have the power to transfer tenancies, and therefore have no power to help sort out the housing problems of couples who can no longer live together.
These problems vary, depending on the couples' marital status. Married couples can, through matrimonial legislation, seek a permanent solution to the problem of who is to have the matrimonial home. The court can transfer a tenancy into the woman's name as part of the divorce proceedings. But that is not of any help to couples who may have religious objections to divorce, or who have not been married long enough to apply for a divorce, or who in the circumstances do not wish to apply for a divorce at the time. Also, in circumstances where there has been violence, when the woman cannot live in the home during divorce proceedings, she could be forced to live in temporary accommodation, or a refuge, and that could be for up to as long as two years.
So far as cohabitees are concerned, there is now no avenue through which cohabiting couples can seek a solution to the problem of a dispute over the tenancy. Since there is an increase in the numbers of couples who are cohabiting, but who are not married, this has become a growing problem. The local authority cannot transfer the tenancy to one of the parties because it interferes with security of tenure, and there is no legislation similar to matrimonial law for cohabitees to use. If the tenancy is in one name only, the sole way in which it can be transferred to the other partner is if the tenant assigns it voluntarily and
1054
therefore makes himself, or herself, homeless. That is not very likely. If the cohabiting couple are joint tenants, one can transfer the tenancy to the other voluntarily, but there is no legislation which can force him or her to do so.
The effects of the problem on attempts by women to be rehoused are very worrying, and I hasten to add that in many cases this also applies to men. If there has been violence and the woman is forced to leave home, she will probably apply to the local authority for rehousing. That is a natural, immediate thing for her to do. She may be refused if she already has a joint tenancy with her husband, or cohabitee, as the case may be, but she has no way of getting the tenancy for herself if she is not married. Alternatively, if she is rehoused, that will leave her cohabitee living alone in family-sized accommodation.
We feel that the decision over what happens to a tenancy when a marriage or a cohabitating relationship breaks down—and this is what we intend to achieve by the amendment—should be left to the court. But at the moment the court is powerless to make such a decision. It cannot deal with unmarried couples; nor can it do anything for anyone else, except those who are able to ask the divorce court to intervene. Divorce proceedings can be very lengthy if contested, and so the housing decision could take a long time. This may mean that the local authority will have to keep families in temporary accommodation for years while they wait for the resolution of the divorce. The cost to the local authority is enormous, and the cost to the family in stress and hardship is immeasurable.
The amendment would enable the local authority to take the problem to the court, and the court would then make a ruling. Until now when this question has been raised—and it has been raised in another place, too—it has been said by the Lord Cancellor's Department that it is a housing matter, while, I understand, the Department of the Environment has said that it is a matrimonial matter. It is generally felt by people and bodies concerned that it is more of a housing matter. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the London Boroughs Association, the National Council for One-Parent Families, the National Consumer Council, the Women's Aid Federation, Shelter and the GLC also support the amendment. All these bodies are very concerned about the inadequacy of the present law to deal with this kind of housing problem in the public sector when there is a relationship breakdown. I beg to move.
Baroness Denington: I have very great pleasure in supporting the amendment. I shall not go over the ground which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has laid out. The situation is very plain. It involves unfortunate and sad human circumstances, often surrounded by much emotion, and sometimes, regrettably, fraught with bitterness. If by legislation we can do anything to alleviate what is an unpleasant and distressing situation, it is our duty to do so. I hope that the Government will look kindly at the proposed new clause or, if they wish to alter the wording, at some other legislation to deal with this particular problem.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, the situation also presents a problem for the housing authorities.

1055
When there is a breakdown of this kind, people who might want a transfer from a smaller house, or who are on the housing waiting list, learn via the bush telegraph that a house may become available. They immediately go to the housing officers and start asking for the house before anything at all has been done about it, and so the housing officers, too, are harassed.
It would seem that the general opinion is that the proposed new clause would be an excellent way to deal with what is a human, as well as an administrative, problem: anything that can be done about it should be done. I would add that today I had lunch with a former general manager of the Sutton Housing Trust, which I mentioned in the Chamber the other day. I asked him his view of the amendment, and he said, "It is utterly desirable. Do please try to get their Lordships to agree to it".
Baroness Seear: I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. The fact is that over very recent years social custon and practice in this respect have changed rapidly, and as a result there has been created a situation with which current legislation does not adequately cope. The amendment is an attempt to bring legislation into line with the needs of today.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to those who have spoken in support of the amendment, I would say that I wish to oppose it for the following reason. I wholly accept that, if one regards the problem as more of a housing problem than a matrimonial problem, everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said is assuredly right. It is a question of approach. Unfortunately, I find that I am unable to approach it in that way. I approach it, perhaps because of the defects of my training, more from the matrimonial aspect. It is for that reason that I would oppose the amendment. Giving the power to a local authority to transfer to one party of a marriage or extra marital relationship property that could be the most important part of what was their property seems to be wrong.
Lord Skelmersdale: The Government fully appreciate the intention behind the new clause. As my noble friend has said, the attempt to resolve difficult and emotional family situations is readily understandable. But the issues are complex and cannot simply be thought of within the context of public sector housing management. After all, public sector housing management is what Schedule 4 of the 1980 Act is all about.
The clause proposes to give public sector landlords a power or a duty—it is not clear, but this does not detract from my argument—to serve possession orders on secure tenants who may or may not be the innocent party in a breakdown of a marriage or cohabiting relationship. These tenants may, as a result, depending on whether the court is required to determine the reasonableness of the order—again, it is not clear—find themselves not only losing their security of tenure and their right to buy but also becoming homeless. These are extremely serious consequences which cannot be equated with those that existed before the 1980 Housing Act when security of tenure and right to buy from councils did not exist for tenants.
1056
The proposed ground would sit uncomfortably in Schedule 4. It cannot be claimed that it falls into the class of grounds where the tenant has failed in his conduct as a tenant, for example, by breaking the terms of the tenancy or by causing a nuisance. Nor can it be claimed to fall into the other areas of housing management grounds such as over-occupation. As far as the landlord is concerned, he, in his role as landlord, has no need to get possession of the dwelling. This fact alone underlines that what the amendment is trying to resolve is a matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial matter and has little to do with housing management, which is what the 1980 Housing Act deals with.
In this connection, it may interest the Committee to know that this problem is dealt with in Scotland by the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has undertaken in another place to continue considering the matter with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. But we have to recognise that this is a complex issue which encompasses matrimonial law, cohabiting relationships and family conciliation services. In our considered view, it would be wrong to take action on one aspect without having regard to the wider issues. I fully appreciate the concern on this whole point that has been evidenced by the Committee this afternoon.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: This is indeed a complex problem. One difficulty is that dealing with the matter under the jurisdiction of the divorce division, as a matrimonial issue, would not really help cohabitees, who would not be saved by the situation. Noble Lords have shown a generous approach towards trying to give as much protection, if that is the right word, to cohabitees as is tolerable. Am I to understand from the intervention of the noble Lord that this matter is under continuing consideration? I appreciate its complexity. If the noble Lord is willing to indicate that it is still under consideration, it is possible that my noble friend will be content to wait upon a further response following that further consideration.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes. I can confirm that this matter is under constant consideration between officials of my department and the department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. I appreciate that it is an extremely complex matter. In view of the undertaking, I shall certainly not press the amendment at this stage. If possible, I should like to feel, along with all those who are concerned about the matter, that the Minister will be in touch with us before Report stage to enable us to know that something will happen. I am certain that the noble Lord appreciates that to have a ping-pong situation between the matrimonial side and the housing side may have a great deal of merit so far as the law is concerned but it is no comfort to the people concerned. Nothing that has been suggested covers the problem of the cohabitees. In the hope of further reassurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Assignments and other disposals of secure tenancies]:
3.56 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 22, line 14, leave out from ("to") to end of line 15 and insert ("the assignment of secure tenancies").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a small but important change to Clause 22, which replaces Section 37 of the 1980 Act. Section 37 of the 1980 Act provides that where a secure tenancy is assigned, it generally ceases to be a secure tenancy. As a result, the person who takes the tenancy on an assignment cannot enjoy the right to buy.
Norwich City Council has used this provision as a means of effectively denying the right to buy. It has said to its tenants: if you wish to exchange your home with another council tenant, you must do it by mutual assignment. As a result, both tenants lose their security of tenure and lose their right to buy. A number of Norwich tenants have found themselves in this position.
Your Lordships will understand that we could not possibly accept that tenants should lose important rights as a consequence of such a device. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing therefore announced in another place in July 1981 that we would stop this loophole, which has come to be known as the Norwich loophole, as soon as the legislative opportunity arose. He promised that the legislation would be effective as from the date of his announcement—28th July 1981.
That is the effect of Clause 22, already in the Bill. For technical reasons it is necessary to recast the whole of the former Section 37 in order to deal with this particular point. But the only substantive change is that necessary to block the Norwich loophole. The clause achieves this by restoring security of tenure to those who have lost it as a result of assignment since 28th July 1981. It also prevents any further use of the device by providing that secure tenancies shall not in general be capable of assignment. The clause was drafted in this way after consultations with the local authority associations.
I apologise for that long preamble, but we now come to the amendment to Clause 22, which is on the Marshalled List. Since the Bill was published, it has come to our notice that a small number of tenants lost their security of tenure, and their right to buy, as a result of assignments which took place before my honourable friend's announcement on 28th July 1981. It would clearly be quite inequitable if security was not restored to those tenants as well. We are therefore providing that any tenant who lost security of tenure following assignment at any time after the commencement of the 1980 Act will have it restored.
Clause 22 is a complicated and technical provision. I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships of the need for this amendment. If further explanation of the other provisions in Clause 22 is required, I will gladly give it, but, as I have said, it is, except as regards the Norwich loophole, effectively a repetition of Section 37 of the 1980 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Other rights of secure tenants]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 22, line 27, leave out ("entitling secure tenants") and insert ("enabling secure tenants to agree with their landlords").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak, at the same time, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 29, 31 and 33. These are all concerned with tenants' repairs. The amendments seek to modify the tenant's right to repairs as at the moment contained in the Bill. The intention is to modify the right to one that only operates by agreement in situations where the landlord has defaulted on his repairing obligations. The amendments also seek to ensure that the Secretary of State consults with local authorities before introducing or, even more importantly, modifying the arrangements.
At present the scheme is a general right which suspends the landlord's repairing obligations—that is how it appears in the Bill at present. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is opposed to these provisions as drafted in the Bill. The London tenants' organisation and the national tenants' organisations are also opposed to these proposals.
The scheme could in some respects be better described as "a right not to repair". What it does is to remove the tenant's right to repair by suspending the landlord's general repairing obligations as set out in Section 32 of the Housing Act 1961 and subsequent legislation. It is a money-saving exercise arising from the recent Department of the Environment report commended by the Minister of Housing and Construction entitled, Tenant Participation in the Repair and Maintenance of Council Houses. That report suggests that for every £1,000 million spent on repairs at present, up to £250 million might be saved if tenants were to undertake a proportion of their own repairs in lieu of their landlords.
Let me hastily add that we do not have any objection to, or want to discourage tenants from, any do-it-yourself scheme or from undertaking some of their own repairs. That is obviously all to the good, both for the tenants and for the local authorities. But the problem is that, except in very minor details, it could be attractive only to the better-off tenants who already undertake a proportion of their own repairs and improvements, not necessarily by their own efforts but by getting in other builders. Tenants who are elderly or unemployed are unlikely to be in a position to afford the initial outlay to participate in the scheme. They will have to continue to rely on the local authority arrangements. Thus it seems to us that it is a selective rather than a universal scheme. Furthermore, the scheme could be used by some unscrupulous local authorities to avoid their repairing obligations and expense. For instance, housing applicants could be persuaded to agree to the scheme if they thought that by agreeing they could obtain an offer of a tenancy more quickly. Homeless households would be in a very difficult position should they be asked directly to participate in arrangements of this type.
One of our great worries is that there could be a great deterioration and run-down in the repair of the housing stock. We have enough problems with the state of the housing stock at the moment without

1059
introducing any more legislation that could be used in this way, although obviously that is not the intention of the Government. However, it would mean that there would be far greater disrepair.
The administrative work in relation to the proposals is likely to be considerable and could be quite out of scale with the small benefit derived from it. It is clear that one London borough which has devised a modest scheme of this type; namely, Havering—of which I am sure the Minister is well aware—has had to devise completely new administrative arrangements and its pre-inspection and post-inspection work has had to increase in order to safeguard public money. Difficulties of that type would be exacerbated in rural areas where, in order to agree a repair for payment under the scheme, a local authority officer would have to visit the dwelling concerned. If the scheme was of a minor nature, the costs of inspection may very much exceed any potential savings which appear possible. If major works are proposed—which the clause would, in fact, allow—then the local authority would have to keep fairly close supervision to ensure that the house was repaired properly and the work completed to a satisfactory standard in order that payment or other financial arrangements could be sanctioned. Where the local authority and the tenants can agree the scheme (as under Amendment No. 27) this could work very well. But we feel very strongly that it should be on the face of the Bill.
We must accept also that the scheme can create extra costs for local authorities. It is unlikely to be self-financing unless the amount that is offered to tenants as repayment for the work they have done is below the true value of that work. As direct labour organisations are forced more and more into competition, the margins on individual jobs will be further reduced and the amount which is actually paid to tenants after taking off the costs of administration will be well below the true value.
The principles have already been set out in the clause and we are seeking modifications in the following areas. First, we wish to see the tenant's right to repair re-introduced when the suspension of the landlord's repairing covenant under the scheme is removed. Secondly, we want the scheme to operate by agreement, but not by compulsion, and through the proper tenants' charter consultation procedures of the Housing Act 1980. Thirdly, we would wish to see the scheme modified to operate in default of the landlord carrying out repairs. This is very important because, as I said on Second Reading, where the landlord is in default it is quite unfair to expect tenants to wait an unconscionable long time in order to have their repairs undertaken. Fourthly, the scheme and any future modifications should be subject to consultation. We feel that consultation should be statutory with the local authority associations.
This again is another complicated matter and there is a great deal more that could be said about it. However, I hope that I have outlined the main points of what we are proposing in the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: The concept behind the clause is a very good one. All of us who have been engaged in local government can think of some absurd
1060
situations where tenants sit around waiting for weeks for a washer to be replaced or something of that nature. The principle is an excellent one. I am concerned, like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, with the taking away of the landlord's residual obligation to repair. That is my main concern. Even with the present landlord's responsibility to repair, one knows of authorities where the repairs are just not carried out and where notices under the Public Health Acts have to be served on local authorities because of their failure even where there is this obligation to repair. So I would not want to see the obligation removed although I would very much welcome the opportunity for tenants to carry out their own repairs either where the landlord fails to do so or where there is an agreement freely entered into between the landlord and the tenant.
Therefore, broadly speaking, while supporting the concept of the new clause, in my view some of the amendments at least would probably improve it and make it easier and fairer in its daily application.
Lord Gisborough: I should like briefly to add my support and ask one question relating to the quality of repairs. Is it not possible for a tenant to make a repair which is totally unacceptable to the landlord? In such circumstances to what extent would he then be able to claim back unwarranted repair costs?
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to add a few words before the noble Lord replies. There is a slight danger here of making the relations between landlord and tenant worse than they are at present. This is a delicate matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, explained to us just now. We want to watch that aspect. The words in the Bill are rather too wide. Let us face it: if a tenant repairs his house and it does not fall within the amount allocated by the local authority, what would happen is that the rents would have to go up, and the local authority would be perfectly justified in putting up the rents of all the houses in order to meet the requirements of some of the secure tenants.
I must admit that I hesitate to say what the correct wording should be. It is a very delicate matter to get right. But one thing is right: the tenants should certainly consult the local authority before acting. That is definite. There may be some difficulty as to the exact decision to be taken. In any case, I should like my noble friend to take this away and think about it because I think that the words are too wide open and that some tenants will take wild advantage of them, which will be to nobody's benefit.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Briefly, I should like to support everything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Selkirk in the hope that, knowing there is a real problem here, my noble friend the Minister will take the matter away and think about it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall most certainly take it away and think about it, but I think it is only right that I should give my preliminary views on this block of amendments. If these amendments are accepted, the very real and positive right to repair, which the Government propose, would be an illusion. That is because the word "agree" is introduced by the first amendment. If the landlord does not agree, there is no

1061
right. I am not quite sure what this amendment is designed to do, but I have the feeling that it could effectively prevent tenants from carrying out their own repairs or arranging to have them carried out even when the tenants, who of course have the major interest in getting the repairs done, could have carried out the repair more quickly themselves.
There is, I believe, general agreement that, on the whole, tenants do not get a satisfactory repairs service from their landlords. There are of course exceptions, and the noble Baroness mentioned one. But to propose that tenants should only be able to carry out their repairs after agreement with their landlords, and perhaps after wasting a very considerable time, is totally inadequate. The proposers of this amendment claim to promote tenants' rights, but, with respect, the amendment falls a long way short of anything that the Government could consider meaningful.
My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has already undertaken to have full and detailed consultation with all the representatives of the landlords, not only of the local authorities. He has already begun consultation by meeting the various chairmen of the landlord associations, and has received preliminary views. One of the matters which these consultations are about is the possibility of providing for certain grounds upon which the landlord may refuse consent to tenants, and the transfer of obligations from landlords to tenants while the right is being exercised.
In view of these discussions—and I fully appreciate the points which have been brought out in the short debate in the Committee this afternoon—I think it would be inappropriate at this stage to have amendments of this sort in the Bill.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I think we were pleased to hear what the Minister has just said—that they are having discussions with tenants' associations. This, of course, was part of the 1980 Act—that before any changes of management were contemplated, the views of tenants and of tenants' associations would be called for. If I heard the Minister aright, I think he said that that is now taking place.
Lord Skelmersdale: No; I said that consultations are taking place with the representatives of the landlords, not with the representatives of the tenants.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Then I do not welcome it quite as much as I would have done. I welcome the discussions that the Minister is having with the landlords—in other words, the local authorities—which one would expect him to have. But I thought that under the 1980 Act (and I stand to be corrected) the landlord has a duty to inform his tenants if any changes in management are to take place. One would hope that in discussing the matter with the landlords the Minister would take into consideration the wishes of the tenants' associations as well, in the same way as in many instances the trade unions are consulted as well as the CBI.
I should like to emphasise what my noble friend Lady Birk said. We on these Benches are not in any
1062
way against the tenant's right to repair, but we say that it must be based upon the default of the landlord in not carrying out essential works. That is where we differ from the Government's clause, and why we have tabled these amendments. It is interesting that those noble Lords who have spoken have spoken quite sincerely about tenants' rights and how they are enforceable in the county court. With the Bill as it now stands, one wonders whether those rights will be forthcoming in the future. Therefore, the discussions on this issue must take that into consideration when we are talking about the right to repair.
The right to repair is part and parcel of tenants' rights, which they can put through the courts. But the point we must consider when we are asking for the right to carry out repairs is, of course, that the council will have to approve the repair. We cannot have tenants just deciding that something needs doing, because some people will find a repair every day of the week and will want the jobs paid for. Obviously, that would be beneficial to you if you intended to purchase the dwelling, because you could get all the repairs done before you started to make the purchase.
Therefore, one presumes that the council will have to approve the repair, and one also presumes that the Government intend that the tenant should choose somebody to do the repair. A tenant may do it himself, through DIY, or he may pick up the Yellow Pages and find someone who can do it. But most likely what will happen is that some unscrupulous people—I shall not use the word "cowboys"—will stick notices through council house doors saying that they can do repairs very cheaply, and then, two or three days later, you will never see them in the area again but, instead, you will have all the problems that will ensue after they have left behind them bad repairs.
If the Government are not willing to accept our amendments or even to take them back and consider them, the local authorities will have to decide on the maximum amount that can be allowed for repairs for tenants, because all local authorities will have allocated a percentage of their rent income to go towards the cost of all dwellings. Therefore, it will not be in the best interests of those not so forthcoming in asking for repairs if their allocation is used up by what one could call the more vocal people who will be demanding repairs.
My noble friend Lady Birk also drew attention to the fact that in many cases local authorities have taken up what the Government have said—that they must privatise their repairs. Large estates sent out contracts so that direct labour departments had to compete with private contractors to do all the repairs on a given site. It would be most unfortunate if people were allowed to pull out of those contracting arrangements. As my noble friend said, it will not be beneficial for the direct labour departments, because obviously their costs will rise if they do not do so many repairs. But nor will it be a happy situation for the private contractor who has moved on to the estate on the understanding that he would do all the repairs on that estate. Therefore, taking into account what my noble friend has said in support of our amendments, I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to our observations.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have already said that I will consider this whole matter, so of course I will.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for his reply, and also everyone else who has spoken in the debate. It is quite clear that throughout the Committee there is a sense of unease about the clause as it stands. It is rather a pity that the discussions which we now understand are to take place did not take place before this clause was put in the Bill. The time for discussions was when the principles of the scheme, as it affects both tenants and landlords, were worked out, because it is a crucial and very complicated matter. Sensible and workable arrangements could be worked out, but, with respect, they should have been worked out before the Bill was brought before us or, in fact, even printed. However, in view of the Minister's reply and, as I understand it, his reply to my noble friend that it is accepted that the position is unsatisfactory as it stands at the moment, at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Trefgarne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Advanced Information Technology: The Alvey Report
4.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in another place about the Alvey Report. The Statement is as follows:
"The Alvey Committee was set up last year at the request of the IT industry to investigate the scope for a collaborative research programme in advanced information technology in the light of mounting concern in the industry at the increasing threat of overseas competition. I am most grateful to the Committee for their extremely valuable report. After detailed consultations with industry I am now able to announce the Government's response.
"The future competitiveness of our IT industry is a subject to which we attach the utmost importance. The report outlines the key areas of technology in which the IT industry must maintain and strengthen its competitive position in world markets. Its theme is the need for collaboration between industry, academic institutions and other research organisations in order fully to mobilise our potential in advanced information technology. The task is beyond the resources of any single enterprise. The central purpose is to pave the way for IT products, IT processes and IT services which can be sold in the market in competition with the rest of the world.
"We therefore accept Alvey's recommendation to establish a programme of collaborative research concentrated on the four main areas of technology set out in the report. These areas are software
1064
engineering, very large scale integration, man machine interfaces, and intelligent knowledge based systems. Industry has realised the need for collaborative research in these areas, and is ready to take part in such a programme. This positive involvement of industry in the funding, management and execution of the programme is crucial to its success, if we are to turn successful research into marketable products.
"The key feature of the programme will be collaboration between companies, Government Research Establishments, and academic institutions. Work carried out in academic institutions will as usual be funded 100 per cent. by Government. In the case of work carried out in industry, Alvey recommended that most of this should be 50 per cent. Government funded, but that some projects should attract 90 per cent. funding. We have considered this last recommendation closely, but have decided that 90 per cent. Government funding does not secure a sufficient industrial commitment and could lead to the programme becoming divorced from industry's needs. I have, therefore, decided that all industrial work should be 50 per cent. Government funded.
"Companies taking part will be required to release know-how and to share results with their project partners. They will also be expected to license results on reasonable conditions to others in the programme, and to organisations outside the programme where this is needed to secure exploitation.
"The report estimated that the research would cost about £350 million over five years. The Government stand ready to support a programme of research on this scale. However, the extent of the Government's contribution to the programme depends upon industry making its contribution and upon the programme's technical progress.
"The report proposed that academic institutions should carry out some £50 million of research over five years, and industry the remaining £300 million. The full cost of this to Government would be around £200 million. This money will be provided by the Department of Industry, the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Defence and, over the PES period, will not add to existing allocations. The Department of Education and Science will fund research through the Science and Engineering Research Council, mainly in the universities. The Ministry of Defence will fund research of particular importance to our future defence industry. The Department of Industry will provide the major portion of the Government's funds and will carry overall responsibility for the management of the programme.
"A new, small, directorate will be established in the Department of Industry to co-ordinate the programme. It will be headed by Mr. Brian Oakley, currently Secretary of the Science and Engineering Research Council. It will be staffed by people from industry and supported by the Government departments concerned and the SERC. The directorate will report to a small supervising board of industrialists. Sir Robert Telford, who has substantial experience of the electronics industry,

1065
has agreed to serve on a part time basis as chairman of the board.
"Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in our history that we shall be embarking on a collaborative research project on anything like this scale. Industry, academic researchers and Government will be coming together to achieve major advances in technology which none could achieve on their own. The involvement of industry will ensure that the results as they emerge are fully exploited here in Britain to the advantage of our economy. Information technology is one of the most important industries of the future and therefore one upon which hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future will depend. Collaboration will ensure that the results of the research are widely disseminated particularly to smaller firms which have such an important contribution to make to the industry. No one can guarantee success, but the Government are convinced that this programme will ensure for British industry secure access to the new technology and to the products and processes on which our future prosperity depends."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House should like to thank the noble Lord for having repeated that Statement. We should like to say straightaway that we wish to put ourselves behind the broad thrust which is contained in the Government's Statement, which gives an outline of the steps that they propose to take and the finance they propose to make available. We say this in particular because we are very glad to see the conversion of the Government to the whole concept of public funding, which has long been one of the cardinal principles behind most of the policies pursued by us on this side of the House.
There is I believe a concept—I hesitate to use the term "Victorian values"—which was popular in the Government at one time and may even be now that industry itself ought not to have the burden of Government interference; that industry itself should be self-supporting, and with the enterprise, thrift and drive for which it was renowned it should be able to generate its own funds for research and development, and matters of that kind. We on this side of the House welcome the conversion.
We note too from the Statement that the principal impetus for it comes from what the Minister says,
"in the light of mounting concern in the industry at the increasing threat of overseas competition".
The noble Lord can say that again. It has been well known in this country, not merely confined to governmental circles, that the Japanese have been funding their basic research in this field 100 per cent., and they have been doing it for a number of years. Yet even this Statement comes out eight months after the report has been made available to the Government. There does not appear to be the great degree of urgency here which I would have expected. However, of course it is well in tune with Government policy in this field in the past. The noble Lord will recall the somewhat stringent comments passed by the Financial Times about a year ago about the former Secretary of State dithering over
1066
whether to support Inmos or not, so there have been some delays. But in broad and general terms we welcome the Statement, although we suspect that one or two matters have not received the Government's attention.
I now turn to these matters in asking the noble Lord some questions that arise. We note, for example, that the support offered by the Government as per the Statement is about £200 million. But the noble Lord will be aware that the Alvey Report recommended two-thirds of the total expenditure, so that means that the Government have cut down the Alvey Report recommendation by some £34 million. Is there any particular reason for this?
Then, in the Statement itself there appears to be no emphasis at all upon, indeed no mention of, the educational implications arising from this. If the noble Lord turns to the Alvey Report itself—I shall not read it—and addresses himself to Sections 7.8 and 7.9 he will find some very pungent observations by Alvey concerning the adequate provision of proper educational facilities, not only in universities but also in the schools. Alvey makes it quite clear that the mere provision of micro-computers in schools will serve very little purpose other than that of teaching basic computer language, and that much of that may have to be unlearned at a later stage. Also, Alvey makes some very important educational recommendations which would involve the Government allowing the public to claw back one-third of its cuts in the university educational field.
Another point concerns security. The Alvey Report made particular mention of how necessary it was, where multi-national firms were involved, that there should be guarantees of security. In the Government's Statement there is no emphasis on that although it is one of the most important recommendations of Alvey. There is a further point concerning the extent of the grant. Alvey recommended 90 per cent. and 50 per cent., and the Government propose 50 per cent. aid throughout. Are the Government sure that this is not going to discourage the smaller firms who have a very great contribution to make, even in the field of dissemination? Is he sure that the Government are giving small firms sufficient encouragement? Finally, I observe that the Government say that they have had consultations with industry. Does "industry" include the Trades Union Congress as well? There are of course two sides of industry and the TUC has a very considerable technical expertise at its disposal in this field. I should like to know whether at any point the Government have consulted with the TUC.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Avebury: We on these Benches thank the noble Lord the Minister and welcome his Statement so far as it goes in endorsing the recommendations of the Report of the Alvey Committee. Can he remind us exactly when it was that this Report was received by the Government and explain why they have taken so long to come forward with these proposals, bearing in mind that if our reaction time is always as long as this we are not going to stand very much of a chance in competing with the Japanese anyway?

1067
The Report mentions four key areas and the noble Lord repeated those, but the Government Statement omitted communications, which are identified as—and I quote the Alvey Report:
"absolutely vital to the success of the AIT programme".
The report said in paragraph 4.6.3 that the network connecting participants should be based on the PSS network system, connection to which would be very expensive. Have the Government decided whether or not they will fund that project? The Alvey Committee said that wide dissemination of results was to be stipulated when industrial projects should be 90 per cent. funded. Do not the Government now require companies to share know-how with partners and to license generally outside the programme? Does the noble Lord not think that this will reduce the number of participants, because the incentive will not be sufficient if they have to fund as much as 50 per cent. of the project, if the rewards have to be distributed over the whole of the industry, as suggested?
Can the Minister tell us, for comparison, how much the Japanese are now estimated to be spending on the fifth generation computer? Some figures are given in Alvey, but I am quite sure that those need to be updated. Will the Government take the point made in Alvey that on specific projects it might be a good idea for us to co-operate with the Japanese so that on the basis of a big programme in this country we would have something to offer them? By interchanging the technology we could get the best of both worlds. On the arithmetic, is the noble Lord able to confirm—I believe that this is what he has said already—that the Government have cut the total amount which was recommended by Alvey to be spent from £234 million to £200 million? Does he think that this kind of cheese-paring is really appropriate in the foremost technology with which this country has to compete in the world?
We also are dismayed that nothing was said in the Statement about the educational aspects of the programme. May I specifically ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention to increase the number of graduates in subjects related to information technology by 780, as is recommended in paragraph 7.11, and also to strengthen post-graduate education? We very much welcome the appointment of Mr. Brian Oakley as director of this project, who I am sure will make an outstanding success of it.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their response to this Statement. I shall deal with as many of the points that have been put to me as I can. The essential point on funding is that the Government decided that 90 per cent. of funding of projects was not appropriate because, as we say in the Statement, this rather reduces the commitment of the companies involved to ensure that they could at least argue that the research was conducted as effectively as it should be, and that the company concerned retained the necessary commitment to the project. We thought there was a risk that where projects were funded at the rate of only 10 per cent. by the companies concerned they would perhaps be conducting research projects just for the sake of
1068
research and that those companies might not have the necessary application to the programme that we think is so essential.
The effect of that decision was that the total level of funding required by the Government dropped, naturally; but in volume terms the programme remains the same as it would have been had we funded it on the more generous level for some of the projects. Even Alvey of course did not suggest that all projects should be funded at the rate of 90 per cent., and it remains the position that some of the research programmes in the institutions will be funded at the rate of 100 per cent., principally by the Department of Education and Science. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me why it had taken eight months to produce a response to this report. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury pointed out, we received the report in September last year. The answer is of course that it was necessary to consult very widely and obtain a real commitment from industry to participate in the programme in the necessary way.
In answer to the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about consulting the TUC, I understand that the TUC was sent a copy of the report but it did not provide any response. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked me about the network project. I understand that that is to be funded on a 50–50 basis. The department have studied the network requirements in detail and we are ready to implement this in due course. I am afraid that I have no reliable figures available on Japanese expenditure beyond those that are given in the report; but something on which I believe we can be sure is that their expenditure is fairly substantial and we shall certainly need to work hard to maintain our position vis-à-vis the Japanese and indeed vis-à-vis some other countries which doubtless will follow the Japanese along this route. I believe those were the principal points that were put to me.
Lord Avebury: Can the noble Lord deal with my point about co-operation with Japan?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the possibility of co-operation with Japan. This is certainly not ruled out in the future but it is not envisaged under the present proposals.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, speaking from these Benches, we naturally welcome this Statement. I was going to make the point that has just been made from the Liberal Benches about the limit of 50 per cent. for industrial firms. It seems to me that there may be cases where no one will undertake the work without perhaps a larger subsidy. Therefore perhaps the Minister would consider not closing the door on this completely because to get a vital bit of work done is worth paying for. One is not convinced in all the areas that, bearing in mind that information has to be disseminated, it will necessarily attract a suitable firm to carry out the work. May I ask the Minister how the participation of individual firms, academic and research bodies will be decided? Will they apply in certain cases or will they be approached, or has that already been done? How does the scale of this programme compare with what I

1069
believe is being done by other European countries? Finally, how soon is the scheme likely to get started and work really to commence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as for which companies are to participate in this programme and how they are to be selected, a number of firms have been identified already for participation in this programme and discussions will proceed with others as the programme develops. We certainly hope that the programme can be underway just as soon as possible—it is to be hoped by the summer of this year; in other words, no delay at all. As to the co-operation within Europe, the noble Lord will be aware that the European Community have a programme, the Esprit programme, which is not too dissimilar from this one and in which some British companies have already been participating. Our European partners are already well seized of the opportunities that are offering themselves in this particular industry and are participating in a pretty enthusiastic way. As I say, we, too, are playing a small part in that particular programme.
But it is clear, if I can develop the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the Japanese are making a major national initiative in this particular area, and clearly it is necessary for us to respond in an appropriate way. The philosophical impetus for this programme is that the Government must create the right environment for British firms to be able to take the best advantages that are now offered in this scheme. The response required to the Japanese initiative is not one that individual companies themselves can be expected to undertake. That is why it is that we bring this programme before Parliament today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I asked about human resources recommendations of Alvey. I put to the noble Lord the specific question whether the increase in the number of graduates in subjects related to information technology recommended by Alvey would be implemented.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it will be necessary for organisations and enterprises other than the Government to respond to the programme that we are bringing forward. On the specific point that the noble Lord has put to me, I should like to take some more advice, if I may, and write to him.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether, in regard to the European programme, the Esprit programme, a certain proportion of the funds which have been mentioned in the Statement will be going to support that European collaborative programme?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. The Statement that I have repeated this afternoon is the basis of a British national programme in this particular area. The Esprit programme is quite separate; but that is not to say that some British firms are not participating in the Esprit programme, because they are.

Housing and Building Control Bill
House again in Committee.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Denington Baroness Denington moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 22, line 31, after ("tenants") insert ("minor non structural").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 32 are grouped together. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 are two halves of one amendment but, because the first applied to line 31 and the second part to line 33, Amendment No. 29 (which applies to line 32) came in the middle and separated the whole. Amendment No. 32 will be dealt with separately. Amendment No. 28 deals with the minor repairs and Amendment No. 30 deals with the more structural repairs of greater magnitude and importance. All of us, the local authorities and the public landlords, have to realise that we must move with the times. This is an age of "DIY". People get pleasure out of doing "DIY" as well as saving themselves money.
These amendments are in sympathy with that attitude but they are also probing amendments. One really would like to know just what is in the Government's mind. We have read the documents of their consultation with tenants. I have been in touch with councils who do this sort of thing. The clause refers at least twice to "regulations". What are these regulations going to be? If one could have known this then probably this amendment would not have been put down. Are the Government going to make regulations that let tenants do anything? For example, underpinning or dealing with a sagging roof or some structural work. How far do they intend to go with this scheme of theirs? If we could get some information on that it would be very useful.
When I used the expression "minor non structural" in my amendment, I really meant that to cover substantial work carried on in the house. But I should have thought that the landlords ought to be tackling the things that are really structural. It is only when the landlord is really failing completely in his proper duties to come along in time and get on with the work that the tenant should then be able to go out to a reputable builder and get it done. Perhaps we can be told just where the Government intend (if they have their mind clear on that) to draw the line.
Amendment No. 32 is slightly different. This is setting down, as I see it, a principle that
"the overall responsibility for maintaining the property in a satisfactory state of repair shall remain with the landlord".
Some years ago, I was chairman of a committee which looked into problems of the nation's old homes, a committee that was set up by Dick Crossman when he was Minister. In that report, by agreement with everybody on the committee (and it is there in the report) we enunciated a principle. I quote it:
"That the nation's houses are a vital national asset, be they publicly or privately owned".
That is, all the nation's houses.
We are dealing today only with public landlords; but I think that we have to recognise that, while tenants can have a lot of responsibility, in the end the public landlords must see that public property is maintained and kept in good order. They may not always use their

1071
direct labour organisations. They will want to do so where the organisations are competent; but, where they are not, they will bring in a private builder. However, the landlords must be responsible. That is the principle which is enunciated in that particular clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I apologise for not having been present when the opening words were spoken. Are not these amendments, in truth, another facet of the previous amendments, as regards which my noble friend the Minister has been good enough to say that he will have a look at them? Surely, if this problem is to be looked at it is wrong that it should be looked at in, so to speak, watertight compartments. In that spirit, I would support the amendment.
Baroness Denington: If I am allowed to say so, yes; it is all part of the same picture. We from this side are delighted that the noble Lord is going to look at it; but perhaps these amendments are a little more flexible, if I might put it like that, than the previous ones.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend. Yes, of course I will bring this within the ambit of my consideration. I am sure that the noble Baroness who moved this amendment in fact read the account in Hansard on 24th February of what happened in another place at (appropriately enough) column 1234, in which a full response was, I feel, given.
However, I should like to make a couple of points in answer to the noble Baroness's probe. It is beyond doubt that the landlord's liability would be suspended only for that repair to which the landlord has consented until the tenant had completed the repair and it had been approved, or until the time allowed had expired, which means that any other repairs outside the approval are the responsibility of the landlord. I will, of course, reconsider that reply in my general consideration. Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene, as I am about to leave that point and go on to another one?
Baroness Birk: I was slightly worried because it sounded a little sinister when the Minister said that there was a full answer given in column 1234. As I understood it—this refers both to the previous amendment and to the one now moved by my noble friend—if the Minister is really going to look at them, I was assuming, perhaps naively, that they were going to be looked at perhaps with the mind opened once again. But if he is going to fall back once more on what has been said—and, let us face it, most of these matters were turned down in Committee in another place—then I think we would take a rather tougher view on this.
Lord Skelmersdale: Of course, I take the noble Baroness's point on this. What the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, asked me was how the Government envisaged this working. That is slightly different from the consideration point, and perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness as to how we consider it is likely to work; certainly at the moment, before I have taken my own considered view of the operation.
1072
Four basic steps would be necessary to have a workable scheme whereby a tenant who so wishes can exercise his right to repair. The first step would have to be the reporting of the defect by the tenant. The second would be the landlord's consent to the proposed repair. The third would be the tenant's reporting to the landlord the completion of the repair; and the fourth would be the landlord's making a payment or credit to the tenant's rent account. That is the sort of broad scheme of things at the moment. Various points have been brought up in regard to the last block of amendments, which will throw light on future consideration of those four steps. This is absolutely right and proper.
The other point I wanted to make was that secure tenants, following the making of the scheme, will be entitled, under the provisions of the scheme, to serve a notice on their landlords giving an indication that they wish to carry out repairs. Their landlords will be obliged to make payments to tenants when that work, and only that work, has been carried out under the scheme. It is currently envisaged that the regulations will lay down by cost limits the repairs to which this right will apply and also what proportion of the estimated costs which the landlord would have incurred should be paid to the tenants. So it is not necessarily the whole amount. I think possibly this cost limit approach is rather better than the one in the amendment, where I think the words are: "minor non structural".
Baroness Denington: Yes, I think the wording of the amendment is very loose, as it was a probing amendment; and that is partly why it was so worded. One surely cannot lay down cost limits nationally, can one? Costs vary from area to area. In London they are wildly expensive and, I hope, not so expensive in other places. Is it to be left to the local authorities? There are so many questions: we could go on for hours asking questions. I suppose all this will be in regulations?
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness is exactly right. All this will be in regulations.
Baroness Denington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not think we can take it any further today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Local authority and Housing Corporation indemnities for certain mortgages
.—(1) Local authorities and the Housing Corporation may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into agreements with recognised bodies making relevant advances on the security of dwelling-houses whereby, in the event of default by the mortgagor, and in circumstances and subject to conditions specified in the agreements, an authority or the Corporation binds itself to indemnify the recognised body in respect of—

(a) the whole or part of the mortgagor's outstanding indebtedness; and

(b) any loss or expense falling on the recognised body in consequence of the mortgagor's default.

(2) The agreement may also, where the mortgagor is made party to it, enable or require the authority or the Corporation in specified circumstances to take a transfer of the mortgage and assume rights and liabilities under it, the recognised body being then discharged in respect of them.
(3) The transfer may be made to take effect—

(a) on any terms provided for by the agreement (including terms involving substitution of a new mortgage agreement or modification of the existing one); and

(b) so that the authority or the Corporation are treated as acquiring (for and in relation to the purposes of the mortgage) the benefit and burden of all preceding acts, omissions and events.

(4) The Secretary of State may under subsection (1) above approve particular agreements or give notice that particular forms of agreement have his approval; and

(a) he may in either case make the approval subject to conditions;

(b) he shall, before giving notice that a particular form has his approval, consult such organisations representative of recognised bodies and local authorities as he thinks expedient.

(5) In this section—
"local authority" means a county or district council, the Greater London Council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
"recognised body" means any body specified or of a class or description specified in an order made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury;
"relevant advance" means an advance made to a person on the security of a dwelling-house in respect of which he has exercised the right to buy or was, before he acquired an interest in it, entitled to exercise that right.
(6) Before making an order under subsection (5) above varying or revoking an order previously made, the Secretary of State shall give an opportunity for representations to be made on behalf of any recognised body which, if the order were made, would cease to be such a body.
(7) Section 16(3) and (5) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (recommendations by services supply association to members) shall not apply to recommendations made to recognised bodies about the making of agreements under this section, provided that the recommendations are made with the approval of the Secretary of State, which may be withdrawn at any time on one month's notice.
(8) In section 110(1) of the 1980 Act (local authority mortgage interest rates) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or section (local authority and Housing Corporation indemnities for certain mortgagees) of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983".")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 when we were discussing Clause 13 stand part. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There was no prior discussion on Amendment No. 34 and, with respect, I should like to seek clarification from my noble friend the Minister, in particular as regards subsection (7), because I find myself really unable quite to understand it. One starts with subsection (1), which reads:
"Local authorities … may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into agreements with recognised bodies".
Then you find the "recognised bodies" in subsection (5), and they are the creatures of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. Then you go on to subsection (7), which says:
"Section 16(3) and (5) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 … shall not apply to recommendations made to recognised bodies".
On subsection (7) generally, I ask my noble friend why any provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices
1074
Act 1976 should apply at all to recommendations made to such bodies about the making of agreements. Then who is it who makes such recommendations? The agreement must be made with the approval of the Secretary of State under subsection (1); so if this is the recommendation, why not just omit, for example, the proviso to subsection (7)? If it is not the Secretary of State who makes the recommendation, then again why not omit the proviso? You can look at it in another way. I find this drafting extremely difficult. If the approval in subsection (1) is not the approval referred to in the proviso to subsection (7), then, if a contract has been made with subsection (1) approval, why should this be affected retrospectively by any subsequent withdrawal of approval to the recommendation within subsection (7)?
I know that this sounds like Mr. Justice Gobbledygook, but I really am trying to understand it. If any of your Lordships understand it, and if my noble friend the Minister understands it, I shall only be grateful. If the approval in subsection (1) is the same as the approval in subsection (7), then the same question arises but a fortiori. So then you come to this position. If the first limb of the proviso—and this proviso has two limbs—
"provided that the recommendations are made with the approval of the Secretary of State",
serves any valid purpose, this is on the basis of a double approval. All right. So be it. But, then, what is the purpose of the second limb?
If my noble friend could clarify three matters, I should be most grateful. The first is the intendment of subsection (7) as a whole, the second is the purpose of the first limb of the proviso, and the third is the need for the second limb and the circumstances in which it is envisaged that such withdrawal would operate. Of course I would not expect my noble friend to do this now, unless he is fully briefed on the matter, but I would only ask that consideration be given.
Lord Renton: We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for having so clearly, and with such penetration, drawn attention to the weaknesses in this new clause. It is unsatisfactory that we should be legislating in a way which creates a doubt upon a doubt and upon a doubt. If anybody doubts what I say with regard to that, I invite him look at the definition subsection, which is subsection (5) at the foot of page 3 on the Marshalled List, where we find that a recognised body,
"means any body specified or of a class or description specified in an order made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State".
It means that none of the rest of that order can be understood, or its effect ascertained, until the Secretary of State has made an order defining what the recognised body is.
In the nature of things, I would not have thought that there could be many recognised bodies envisaged by the department in this context, and that therefore, instead of leaving it for a statutory instrument to be made at some unknown time in the future, it would be better, even if it has to be described fairly widely, to put in a definition of what a recognised body is. That would remove some, but not all, of the uncertainty which lies in the rest of this new clause.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to both my noble friends for pointing out the difficulty and, of course, I will take up the opportunity afforded by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to write about which proviso hangs on the other, or whether neither does, which I am not able to answer at this moment. In reply to my noble friend Lord Renton, and also, slightly, my noble friend Lord Campbell, I must say that recognised bodies are far from being creatures of the Secretary of State or the Treasury. Your Lordships will know that the mortgage market, which is what this clause is all about, is in a state of fluidity at the moment and it is not just the building societies which comprise it. We envisage initially that the main mortgage lending institutions, other than building societies, would be specified in the order and would thus include, for example, banks, insurance companies and friendly societies. In five years' time there might well be another financial institution offering mortgages, in which case it would be appropriate to add it to the list by a future order. This is why the middle part of subsection (5) is drafted in this rather peculiar way.
Lord Renton: I understand what my noble friend says, but he has essentially referred to bodies which at present exercise certain functions and he says that there may be other bodies exercising such functions in the years to come. Therefore, one way round this difficulty, I should have thought, would be to say that any body which now or in the future—I am only paraphrasing and am not trying to be an amateur dratfsman—exercises the functions which my noble friend has described shall be a recognised body for the purpose of this clause. That would be one way round it and I should have thought it was worth thinking about.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, most certainly it is, and I will do so.
Baroness Birk: As I understood him, the noble Lord said that he would write to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not think that that is quite good enough. I welcome the spirit of what is intended in the clause. I am afraid I had reached the stage of thinking that it was part of the clause, and I did not entirely understand the way in which it was described. But when two eminent lawyers opposite point out problems in the drafting of this clause, it creates a great worry and it should be taken back for redrafting. I do not think that a letter teaching the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, how to find their way round the clause is the answer. If they have difficulty about some points, then I must ask the Minister to take the clause back.
Lord Skelmersdale: In the consideration which always goes on before writing a letter, one of the points is consultation as to whether the clause needs redrafting in the way that my noble friend Lord Renton has suggested, and, of course, I undertake to carry out this consultation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Local authority contributions towards certain mortgage costs
.—(1) A local authority may contribute towards any costs incurred by any person in connection with any legal charge which secures, or any proposed legal charge which is intended to secure, a relevant advance made or proposed to be made to him by a body specified in subsection (2) below, but only to the extent that the contribution does not exceed such amount as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(2) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) any recognised body; and

(b) any building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1962 or the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) In this section expressions used in section (local authority and Housing Corporation indemnities for certain mortgagees) above have the same meanings as in that section.").
Baroness Birk: I believe the noble Lord said that he spoke to this amendment on Clause 13, but we did so much work the other day that I have no recollection whatsoever of it. I am sure that he did so, but I do not have what he said in front of me at the moment. I am rather concerned about the amendment because, once again, the intention is to subsidise further the mortgage costs of tenants at the expense of the landlords' financing. That means that some local authorities will be contributing towards
"any costs incurred by any person in connection with any legal charge".
If the proposed clause had used the word "shall", I should have launched an enormous onslaught on it, but instead it uses "may".
I am rather concerned about this upping of the subsidy towards the purchase of a house in terms of either the mortgage charges or mortgage costs, or in any other way. I want to register that feeling. I doubt whether the noble Lord the Minister can put my fears at rest. I fear that this clause clearly states its purpose, and I do not like what it says—unless I have misunderstood the drafting.
Lord Skelmersdale: Amendment No. 35 is essentially a repeat of the existing Clause 13 of this Bill. The noble Baroness has had plenty of opportunity to study Clause 13. If she wanted to register the kind of complaint she has just made, she might have done so when we discussed Clause 13 the other evening—which we did, if my memory serves me right (I do not have Hansard in front of me), in some detail. I will look in Hansard tomorrow to establish the points which the noble Baroness has made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Transitional provisions]:
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 36:
Transpose Clause 24 to after Clause 21.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Giving and acceptance of an initial notice]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 26, line 4, leave out ("such").
The noble Lord said: I do not have a great deal to say, but as the clause is drafted, as I read it, plans do not necessarily have to accompany an initial notice. I should have thought it absolutely essential that plans should accompany an initial notice, and my amendment is designed to ensure this. There is, however, one point that I have noticed since putting down this amendment. It is that the words,
"as may be prescribed",
in the following line should also be removed to ensure that the amendment meets this point. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Clause 26 implements our proposal—and if my noble friend will permit, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38—to establish the option of a private sector alternative to local authority building control. It provides the mechanisms enabling an approved inspector to undertake the functions of inspecting plans and supervising building work.
The initial notice is the first step in the process of private certification. It must be in a prescribed form, containing certain information, if the local authority are to accept it. This information will include a statement that the certifier is independent of the developer and there must be evidence of insurance cover. The notice will also have to be accompanied by prescribed plans—and it is this requirement to which my noble friends' first amendment relates.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I explain what these prescribed plans will be. They will not be detailed building plans, but plans that are sufficient to identify the proposed work and to enable the local authority to carry out certain obligations under the Public Health Act 1936 and other enactments. These are matters which are outside the building regulations but which are triggered off under the present system by the deposit of building plans, and I shall refer to them as the linked powers. They include, for example, Section 25 of the 1936 Act, which protects existing sewers and drains. If the building plans show that a proposed building would be situated over an existing sewer or drain, the local authority may reject the plans, or alternatively impose conditions to ensure the satisfactory maintenance of the drains. Another example is Section 37, which relates to the provision of adequate drainage. If the plans accompanying the initial notice are unsatisfactory in any of these respects, the local authority will be required to reject the notice. Perhaps my noble friends are anxious lest the Secretary of State might not prescribe these plans, but I can assure them that the amendment is unnecessary. The certification system could not operate without them. They are essential in setting out the division of responsibility; the local authority for the linked powers, and the approved inspector for the building regulations.
Possibly the second of my noble friends' amendments (which I have to say is defective) is also intended to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State so that an approved inspector will somehow have
1078
to do "everything". I am afraid that the effect would be to remove from the Secretary of State the most important power in this part of the Bill—the power to prescribe the statutory duties of an approved inspector. The main prescribed function of an approved inspector will be to take such steps and make such inspections of the work as enable him to be satisfied, within the limits of proper professional skill and care, that the work is in conformity with the building regulations. There will be other important functions, such as consulting the fire authority in respect of any proposed work, which a local authority, under the present system, is required to do.
These are matters on which there will be further consultations, and we need the flexibility in finalising details which is available from prescribing them in regulations. In responding to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, I believe it was proper to go into this matter in some detail—either for his benefit now or to have on record. As a consequence of my observations, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before commenting, I apologise to the Committee for not being here on Tuesday. I was in the North of England looking at houses and factories, and that was a very depressing sight in some instances.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Part of the problem with this part of the Bill is that it is very wishy-washy; we do not know what it is we are dealing with. One point that concerns me is that we are attempting to discuss details of a Bill that has many regulations and requirements which are still unspecified, but which are to receive attention at a later date. Therefore, we have to put down these amendments in order to decipher from the Government a little more about what it is they are going to do. It would have been helpful had there been a clearer exposition of the prescribed regulations. Can my noble friend Lord Bellwin say whether there is any chance that we might be able to see a draft of the regulations or have his thoughts on them before the Bill leaves this House?
Lord Bellwin: I did refer to the fact that there has to be further consultation, and that will be so. My noble friend will take the point that, with regulations, these are matters which develop after consultations. Therefore, the likelihood of the regulations being available before the Bill goes through the House is remote in the extreme. Nevertheless, I know of my noble friend's concern, and of his knowledge in this area. It will be useful to hear what he has to say. If my noble friend has not yet seen them, I shall be glad to make available to him the Notes on Clauses, which may serve to give some clarification. I certainly offer him the facility of any detailed explanation or clarification that he might like to have on any aspect of the Bill.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support that which has been said by the noble Earl and the noble Lord opposite because we have encountered this same problem in other parts of this Bill. It is very difficult when matters are prescribed in regulations which are

1079
to follow the Bill. This is why a number of amendments are asking for some matters to be put on the face of the Bill. There is general concern about this. I accept that not everything can be on the face of the Bill, but there are certain matters which we strongly feel should be.
In respect of the regulations, while I appreciate the noble Lord's point that we must deal with the Bill first, there are certain areas where the regulations could be dealt with concurrently or where we could know about them. Although we are grateful to have received the Notes on Clauses, these do not go all that way towards helping one, so far as future regulations are concerned.
Baroness Nicol: I, too, must apologise for missing the first part of this Committee stage on Tuesday. I just want to make one point on the question of the building regulations. I support the amendment which is being put forward, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, gave. I understand that consultations, certainly with the Association of District Councils, and no doubt with many other bodies, began about a year ago. In their very first reply, the Association of District Councils drew attention to the fact that, although they recognised that these regulations were overdue for revision, they felt that any changes in respect of appointment of approved inspectors or any other major changes in the system should wait until the regulations had been finalised.
I find it difficult to understand why we have this undue haste. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that, with proper consultation, the regulations could have been produced so that the bodies concerned could have given their views on them, and then we could have proceeded with the next stage, and changed the system of inspection. I should be interested to know why there has to be this haste and why we cannot see the regulations before we have to make these decisions.
Lord Bellwin: It is absolutely—if I may use the expression—par for the course for the many Bills with which I have been associated that regulations are worked out after the Bill goes through or while the Bill is going through. I was rather amused when the noble Baroness said that a year ago there were consultations and discussions taking place; I thought she was about to chide me for the fact that nothing had been resolved, but she went on to ask why the undue haste. I am sure she was referring to something slightly different. The fact is that this is the normal procedure and the regulations will have to be resolved as we go along, by consultations which will continue. Discussions on the Bill always afford an additional opportunity. My noble friend Lord Caithness, for example, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen obviously have something they want to put in, and this is part of what I understand as consultation, which I think is welcomed. One wants to have it as right as one can get it. So, although that may not be too satisfactory to the noble Baroness, I hope it is at least an explanation of the position as it is.
Lord Swinfen: May I thank my noble friend, and thank the noble Baronesses opposite, for their support. Like them, I feel that we should have had, not
1080
necessarily detailed regulations, but some indication of the form they might take. I realise that there is some difficulty in having any final draft ready until the Bill has completed its stages in both Houses, but it has spent some considerable time in the other place before coming here, and I think there might have been some indication ready for us. However, I will read what my noble friend has said with interest, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 26, line 13, leave out from ("take") to ("the").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, I should like to say to the Minister, is designed to make sure that an approved inspector must inspect the building plans, because, as I read the Bill, regulations or no regulations, there is at the moment nothing in it to ensure that he must inspect the plans to ensure that the building is eventually constructed in accordance with them. Can my noble friend assure the Committee that, when the regulations come out, it will be mandatory on the inspector to inspect the plans in order to ensure that the building is properly constructed? I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: No, I cannot give that assurance to my noble friend. What I can give him an assurance about is that the point he makes will be very well taken, and hopefully will be a contribution to the regulations as they will eventually turn out to be.
Lord Swinfen: I am not entirely sure that I am satisfied, because either in the regulations or in the Bill before it leaves this House it must be made absolutely essential that the approved inspector does inspect the building plans, because how else will he ensure that any building is properly constructed? I will possibly go further into this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 27, line 21, at end insert—
("(8) Any scheme approved or insurance cover prescribed for the purposes of this section shall require that an approved inspector shall be fully covered for any period during which a claim may be made against him or his estate.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a very important amendment, as it is concerned with insurance cover. Under the existing law, where a local authority building inspector negligently certifies that a building work complies with the building regulations and where that building is subsequently found to be defective, the local authority which employed that inspector would be liable in damages to the owner or occupier of the building. To avoid or reduce such claims to the minimum, local authorities operate the building regulations on the basis that prevention is better than cure, and accordingly their policy is to stop defective buildings being constructed, so far as is possible, rather than to approve them and pay damages later.
In this Bill we appear to have a change in this situation. The concern felt about this comes not only from noble Lords on our Benches, but also from NALGO, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, district planning officers, the Incorporated

1081
Association of Architects and Surveyors, and indeed a host of other bodies who are all concerned at what is an extremely important point. We believe that the intention behind this part of the Bill is to replace that preventive concept with a more relaxed system based upon compensation through insurance where defects pass unnoticed. If the concept of compensation through insurance is to be anything approaching a satisfactory replacement—and I still wonder if even that is possible—for that of prevention, it is essential that the provisions for requiring insurance cover should be adequate enough to protect the victim of the negligence of an approved inspector.
Clause 26(1)(c) touches on the requirement for insurance, but that requirement arises more specifically in subsection (6) of the clause. That subsection provides that the Secretary of State "may" impose requirements with respect to the provisions of insurance cover against the negligence of an approved inspector. It is that "may impose" which also adds to the doubt as to the relaxation of the clause. The matter of insurance is one of vital importance. Therefore, we and the different bodies who are worried about this particular clause take the view that subsection (6) of Clause 26 does not in its present form adequately provide for the requirements necessary to suit the new arrangements as laid down and put before us in the Bill. We feel that the Secretary of State must accept a duty to impose a requirement, through the building regulations, that an approved inspector shall be fully insured for his negligence during any period in which a claim might be made against him. The object of the amendment is to secure that necessary result. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I think that, as the noble Baroness says, this is a very important clause. I think it is important that this insurance cover should be mandatory and not permissive, as it appears to be under the Bill as drawn. Recent decisions in the High Court have imposed a very heavy burden on local authorities in the event of damage to buildings being discovered which are a result of negligent cover by the inspectors. The provision is a very useful additional protection for house owners. Since the time for the Statute of Limitations only starts running from the date that the defect is discovered it is a useful form of protection which has been devised in a number of leading cases, as I have said.
I would be very unhappy if the Bill is left as it is. For instance, if a defect is not discovered for 10 or 12 years after the house has been built and the Statute of Limitations runs from there, it is likely that, with inflation, any insurance cover taken out under the provisions of subsection (6) would have become totally inadequate to cover the cost of putting the matter right at the time the defect was discovered or within the period of the Statute of Limitations thereafter.
It would be a pity if this protection, which is useful for house owners, were to be watered down in any way. I hope that the Minister will accept firming up the position as suggested by the noble Baroness.
Lord Swinfen: I support the principle behind the amendment. However, I am not sure that it is not
1082
already covered under subsection (6); but I am no legal eagle and I could be wrong. It is not unusual for defects to be found in buildings many years after they have been constructed. The more complicated that buildings become—and every year they become more complicated as new methods and materials are brought into use—the more essential it is that proper insurance cover should be in position to protect not only the owner of the building for any damage caused but also the tenant and the aproved inspector. It is not usual for a local authority to be sued for damages or for something that a building inspector has missed. It is becoming increasingly difficult, no matter how highly skilled the building inspector is, to ensure that he covers every single point on some of these extremely complicated modern buildings.
Baroness Nicol: Subsection (6) states that the Secretary of State "may" approve just as subsection (7) states that building regulations "may" prescribe. If the "may" in each case became "shall" the clause would take on a completely different complexion. It is the element of doubt left in subsections (6) and (7) which makes the amendment even more important.
Lord Bellwin: I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that this is an important matter. Let me say first that subsections (6) and (7) provide two methods by which the Secretary of State will be able to see that satisfactory insurance arrangements are made. The objective is to ensure that the building owner and any subsequent owner will be certain to be able to obtain redress, at least within a known period, where defects were subsequently discovered in a certified building. It will always be open to a building owner to sue a certifier for negligence at any time in the future, subject to any time limit in the general law of liability, but measures taken under these subsections would guarantee redress for a known period.
We do not consider that certified buildings are likely to prove to be defective. We are confident that inspectors, as qualified and experienced professional people, will do a reliable and technically competent job. However, just as at present local authority control does occasionally fail, the same may occur in the private sector and the building owner clearly must have some means of redress.
The Bill allows for two alternative methods of providing satisfactory insurance. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to approve particular schemes of insurance in relation to work, which could include insurance against the occurrence of defects whether or not they are due to the certifier's negligence. Subsection (7) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe by means of regulations the insurance cover which is to be provided in cases where the work is not covered by an approved scheme.
We think it will be possible to provide insurance cover which will give owners of privately certified property adequate protection. The National Housing Building Council has already said that, if approved as certifiers of low rise housing, they would give owners of houses which they certified first an improved 10 year warranty in respect of defects in a house, and, secondly insurance protection in the event of their negligence as certifiers for up to 15 years. The improved 10 year

1083
warranty would cover major damage not only due to major defects, as at present, but also due to breaches of the building regulations. For example, it would cover excessive damp penetration and defects in the drains.
The British Insurance Association has commented that the NHBC arrangements appear to provide the framework for a satisfactory way of dealing with this area of building work. We are exploring this and other possibilities in our continuing discussions with the insurance industry.
Amendment No. 39 however would require something which the insurance industry cannot provide; namely, insurance cover for a certifier, covering his own negligence for an indefinite period, regardless of the fact that there is no way of ensuring that premiums will continue to be paid.
It is true that under the present law, which the Law Reform Committee are currently considering, a local authority might be called upon to meet claims in the indefinite future, and would have the resources to do so, if they admitted liability, or were found liable in the courts.
Similarly, it would always be open for an owner to sue a certifier, for as long as the law permits. Consequently, it would be in the interests of a certifier, or any other professional person for that matter, to insure himself against such an eventuality. But we cannot require people to do the impossible.
The advantage to a house owner of being able to sue the local authority in the distant future is more apparent than real. If the court did not find the authority liable, the building owner would have incurred considerable expenditure and obtained no redress. Against that, a warranty covering defects for a reasonably long period will ensure that they are remedied without the need for litigation. The approved inspector will thus be offering something which will not be available from the local authority.
We think building owners who choose certification will be as well if not better protected by a scheme such as the NHBC has offered, which gives guaranteed protection to building owners against defects, regardless of liability, for 10 years, followed by guaranteed protection for a further period against defects resulting from the certifier's negligence.
I do not know what more I can say. I recognised all along that this would be a point of concern, and quite rightly so. It was a point of concern when we were considering the drafting of the Bill. That is why we have paid such careful attention to it and thought about it as we have. The noble Baroness knows that I always live in hope. I hope therefore that on reflection, and in view of what I have said, she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is the Minister taking the proposals by the NHBC as standard insurance proposals; that is, that they will normally be for a period of 10 or 15 years? I mentioned the continuance of premiums, but surely in the NHBC scheme there is only a single premium. So there is no question, so far as I know, of the premiums being continued over the years. Roughly speaking, is this going to be the standard which will operate for all authorised inspectors?
Lord Bellwin: Absolutely. We are very concerned about the inspectors and the insurance aspects which my noble friend mentions. To the best of my knowledge that is so—in fact, it must be so if we are to get the protection and the cover that is required.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I have been listening with great interest to the Minister. He has stressed faults that might arise during house building. However, the building inspectors at present do a great number of large jobs outside house building and that must cause us all great concern. Very often the buildings will be used by the general public, so we are dealing with a matter of public safety.
As I read the Bill at the present moment, it seems to me that the Secretary of State is leaving the details out of the Bill, which makes it more difficult for the contractor to know at what stage, and in what kind of amount, the insurance will be required. A person may be given the position of an inspector perhaps of a shopping arcade, worth several million pounds, with a sports centre attached to it. Obviously a terrific insurance would have to be paid by the approved inspector. One would have to wait and see whether the approved inspector would be able to recoup that.
Because the Law Reform Committee are still considering the matter of liability, and have not yet reported, it seems premature that the Government should be putting something as loose as this in the statute. The Law Reform Committee are having the greatest difficulty in defining the matter of liability and for how long the period should be from when the building defect is noticed or from when the building was constructed. We think that it would be premature even to consider that angle when the Bill might easily have to be altered if the Law Reform Committee come forward with recommendations later in the year. For that reason, we think that it is premature, but to cover ourselves and to cover anybody who is going to use the building, I think we have to say that the insurance must cover every eventuality.
Lord Bellwin: If I might add just one word, let me make it quite clear that it is considered that insurance is absolutely essential. The Bill requires it. Clause 26 (1) (c) says that the initial notice must be:
"accompanied by such evidence as may be prescribed that an approved scheme applies, or the prescribed insurance",
and so on. In other words, there must always be insurance. The only discretion allowed to the Secretary of State is the nature of the evidence to be prescribed. But I say again that I understand the concern. It is proper that it should be expressed. But I think that it is covered.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the noble Baronesses have raised a very interesting point, but I hope that they do not press it today, because I certainly want to do more work on this point. I had not picked it up myself but it was a point that I was going to raise later. The work that these approved inspectors can undertake will be limited by insurance, because a lot of them will not be able to cover themselves to undertake shopping centres, laminated timber constructions or constructions of stressed concrete in two directions at once. They just will not be able to do it with the

1085
insurance cover to satisfy the prescribed regulations—whatever they are going to be. So I should like to support the principle of this, but I hope that the noble Baronesses will withdraw the amendment so that we can raise the matter again at a later stage.
Lord Bellwin: A final word, if I may, just to remind my noble friend—I am sure he does not need it—or to make the position quite clear. The developer, whoever he may be, has an option. It is not an "either/or" situation. He has the option to say, "I want the local authority to do it. I like the way that it is now. I prefer their system". He is absolutely entitled to do that. But what the Bill gives is an option to those who feel that there is a more flexible and quicker alternative. That is all it is doing and not offering one thing instead of another. It is not "either/or".
Baroness Birk: I think that it is clear from what the Minister has said—and he has been quite frank about it—that the Government are not intending to move on this. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who asked me not to press this amendment, will accept there is no point in our waiting for the next step, because, if the Minister was going to have new thoughts on it, I think that he would have quite frankly said so now. He always does do that.
We are deeply concerned about this. It is a move from the local authorities to privatisation. It is an entirely different scene that we are moving into. With local authorities, which have a great deal of both authority and security behind them, it is an entirely different situation. This has also been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, sitting on another Bench, as well as from this Bench. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, also raised some points which I found disquieting. We are also aware that a number of the big insurance companies do not want to have anything to do with this. What worries me is that, while the Minister says that he accepts the principle of this, he is unwilling to take into the Bill wording—quite a simple amendment—which would make it absolutely definite and which would impose what we want to have imposed in the Bill. It would be there and it would be simply described, rather than just leaving this very open discretion. Relying on the body to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord referred only deals with part of the problem. It is a very large problem and could get larger. In view of that, I am afraid I must press this amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before my noble friend decides whether she will press this amendment—
Noble Lords: She has decided.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not think she has quite yet. Before she decides, will she reflect that I, for one, will not support her? I am sure that that will move her deeply. In my view, there is quite enough meddling with the building industry in this clause already. We should not add any more.
Lord Evans of Claughton: With respect, I had not intended to speak again, but I must say after that remark that the point is that one is not concerned about the developers so much or the meddling; it is a concern to protect purchasers, whose protection will now be considerably diminished as a result of this proposal. I think that that is a very important and serious matter.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Balogh, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Barrington, V.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Mais, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Caithness, E.

Molloy, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Peart, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Donegall, M.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Avon, E.

Elton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Boardman, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Brookes, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glanusk, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Carrington, L.

Grantchester, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gridley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Colwyn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Croft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V.

Lawrence, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lyell, L.

1087

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Marley, L.

Sandford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Selkirk, E.

Merrivale, L.

Shannon, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Moyne, L.

Strathspey, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Tenby, V.

Northchurch, B.

Terrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Teynham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Pender, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trenchard, V.

Porritt, L.

Vivian, L.

Portland, D.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Romney, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Effect of an initial notice]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 28, line 3, leave out ("plans are") and insert ("deposit of plans is to be").
The noble Lord said: The sole purpose of this amendment is to correct a drafting error. As drafted, Clause 27(2)(d) refers to a
"declaration under section 66 of the 1936 Act that the plans are of no effect".
In fact, Section 66 provides for a declaration that the deposit of plans shall be of no effect. The amendment merely brings the wording of the Bill into line with that of the earlier Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether the Minister can help me on the clause regarding just one point for clarification. Who is responsible for consulting? Is it the fire authority, the local authority, or the approved inspector? Should it not definitely be the local authority, and should this not at some place be written into the Bill? I ask the question in order to ensure that the fire authority is consulted at the relevant stage, and that developers do not fall between two stools and end up without the fire authority being consulted.
Lord Bellwin: Whether this particular point should be written into the Bill is a question that I should have to consider, though I doubt whether we should want to do so; I think that it is self-explanatory. But again, as with many of the technical querieś which my noble friend raises, not least in the light of his own very considerable expert knowledge in this sphere, I should be glad to take up with him any point which he feels may be necessary and which is not sufficiently clarified.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Approved inspectors]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 28, line 41, leave out ("body (corporate or unincorporated)") and insert ("single body").
The noble Baroness said: As drafted, the clause permits a wide range of bodies to apply different criteria, different rules, and different degrees of discipline on their members. What we feel is required is one body which will apply consistent standards, while drawing upon the expertise of all the professions. The last thing we want to do is to set up a large, new quango-like structure. What is proposed would be a panel of professional bodies already engaged in the field—a joining together—which would make more sense and would lead to more efficient working of the provision. A number of professional bodies have already announced their interest in participating in the function of a body along the lines suggested.
Further, the amendment would still enable the Secretary of State to appoint an approved inspector, though I feel that common sense would dictate that this should not be necessary from the date when the single body is set up. The objective is to create a body with a wide range of expertise and with credibility in the eyes of builders, developers, insurance companies, and indeed the builders' workforce on site.
The Secretary of State has I think accepted already that in the case of more complex work it should not be left to individual professional bodies to determine those capable of certification. In another place, the Minister stated that such a body as proposed by the RICS, the Institution of Municipal Engineers, the IAAS and IBCO would be a prime candidate for designation for the purpose of approving specialist inspectors. It may be that the local authority associations should also have representation; but I do not believe that, at this stage, we need enter into such details. The type of body proposed is strongly supported both inside and outside Parliament. It would certainly appear to us to be an improvement to the Bill. There is no really good reason why this should not be done. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am pleased to be able to support the amendment for the good reasons advanced by my noble friend. As the subsection stands, an admixture of bodies will be designated by the Secretary of State as approving bodies. As my noble friend has remarked, the snag is that their standards, rules and criteria differ. The various bodies representing different specialties and different disciplines could designate persons whose standards are not comparable. This leads us to the conclusion that a single body drawing upon the expertise of all the appropriate professions should be set up to designate the approved inspectors.
We are not asking for the setting up of an expensive and administratively top-heavy body. We are calling for a small panel whose members would be nominated or appointed by the professional bodies, and some possibly by the local authority associations. With that kind of membership, a panel should be able to work in a co-operative spirit with the professions and the local authorities. The cost of the administration would be small. A single body with a wide range of expertise, and conscious of its responsibilities, would be the best

1089
guarantee that the approved inspectors—they are really the key figures—are competent and suitably qualified to meet the demands of their job.
Lord Bellwin: We have not yet reached any firm conclusion as to which bodies should be designated. This is a matter on which we propose to consult further. Any application will be considered on its merits. They could well include a number of professional institutions, and the clause as it stands provides for this. Amendment No. 41—with which, if your Lordships permit, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 42A—would have the effect that only a single body could be designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of approving inspectors. I do not think that the limitation is justified. I am not sure that it is even what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, intend. There are existing bodies that should be quite capable of approving inspectors to undertake certain sorts of work. I am thinking particularly of the professional institutions. It is my belief that members of some existing professional institutions and registered architects, provided that they are sufficiently experienced, should be competent to inspect some of the more straightforward types of building, and that the respective institutions are sufficiently responsible to approve their members on the basis of their professional experience. Clause 28 specifically provides for approval of an inspector to be limited to particular kinds of work.
In the case of more complicated buildings, some higher degree of competence and some form of individual vetting of potential inspectors would be required. In this connection, the department received a submission prepared on behalf of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the Institution of Building Control Officers, the Institution of Municipal Engineers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggesting the setting up of a joint board that might take on this role. There could be much practical merit in a proposal on these general lines. If the professional institutions were to set up such a joint body, it would seem to be a prime candidate for designation for the purposes of approving specialist inspectors.
Amendment No. 42A appears to be consequential upon Amendment No. 41. It would remove the Secretary of State's ability to make building regulations providing for the maintenance of a list of designated bodies. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will perhaps see the value in retaining the flexibility inherent in the Secretary of State's powers to designate more than one body if deemed appropriate. In those circumstances, I invite them to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder if the noble Lord will carry matters further. This is one of the most important developments in the Bill. We are possibly in two minds about how it will work out. The noble Lord says that the great professional bodies will carry out this task. It is a long drawn-out course. The Secretary of State appoints a body, the body appoints an inspector and the inspector can delegate the work to someone else.
1090
This asks for an awful lot to be taken on trust. Who decides, if a chap proves not to be up to the job, that he should be relieved of his job as an approved inspector? Who will be the judge? Who will see that standards are maintained?
One has to remember that there is the possibility of back-scratching in this business. If there is a touch of that, the chap should be scratched straight off the list. Is this going to be a matter for an outside body or a professional association? These are members put on their honour to do a job properly. Sometimes, people will not live up to the standards of a professional association. Will the noble Lord give a better picture of the way in which he expects this to work?
Lord Bellwin: My noble friend raises important points. The question of who judges the competence in the scenario that I have described will be the professional bodies. Is there not always the safeguard however of an appointed inspector passing on the word to someone else that, when appointed, he takes on the responsibility? What a responsibility it is! It is true that he will have insurance but he only has to be proved incompetent once and that—if I may use the expression—would be game, set and match for him. There is a tremendous onus on a person appointed to make sure that anyone to whom he may sub-delegate work does that work properly and carries it out.
As to the question of how far one can rely upon, not the integrity, but the ability, of the body set up to do the appointing, this is clearly an issue that has to be thought about carefully. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be so concerned when it comes to the setting up of the body. Again, as I have said on more than one occasion today, if there proves to be any problem the Secretary of State can always withdraw approval from the designated body. That would be fairly serious I would have thought professionally. However, if there are suggestions that your Lordships wish to make, I am sure that the Secretary of State will be glad to take them into account. Certainly he will read very carefully what has been said today on this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Earl has made a very valuable point and I must confess that I had missed it. Who is empowered to take away the powers from the approved inspector? I should have thought that he who gives the powers can also take the powers away. If the body mentioned in Clause 28(1)(b) is also to be clothed with the power to take away the authority of the approved inspector, then I should have thought that a single authority would be far better equipped to handle that situation than a professional body. It is an argument which really supports the main argument which we have put forward for transferring the responsibility to a single body.
Lord Bellwin: Let me just confirm to the noble Lord that, yes, indeed, the designated body can withdraw approval.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I could follow what my noble friend has just said by giving an example. Let us suppose that an approved inspector is building a house next to the one in which I live. I am unhappy about something and I do not think that the

1091
building regulations are being honoured. I make my representations to the people who are having the house built and they say, "Oh no, he is an approved inspector and there is nothing wrong with it". But I am still very concerned because it is going to affect my property. Therefore, I go along to the local authority and I say, "I feel that the building going up next door to my house contravenes the building regulations". Have the local authority some power, because I am a ratepayer, to come down and inspect that work and say, "This is not being done correctly and you must remedy it"? Is it the local authority's responsibility or do they just say to the approved inspector, "We have had a complaint about your work. Will you take note of it?" Alternatively, does the local authority say, "We shall have to notify the Secretary of State"? Or do they notify the approved body that it is acting in the wrong way? Does the local authority have to do it or would I have to do it if I were the person who was complaining?
Lord Bellwin: If the noble Baroness had that concern and she knew that it was an inspector, other than a local authority, who was supervising the work, then clearly the complaint would go in the first instance to the inspector and she would specify the grounds of her complaint. If she was not then satisfied that he acted upon it, or if he acted and she was still not satisfied, then she would surely go to the body who had appointed him and say so. The inspector would be faced with a challenge which he would then know he would have to justify in two ways. First, if he persisted and if the complainant let the matter go but it proved in the end that there had been negligence or incompetence on his part, then he would be very much at risk—he would certainly be liable. Furthermore, the designated body, faced with the type of complaint to which the noble Baroness has referred, would surely want to look into it and discuss it with the inspector and give him a chance to have his say before coming to a conclusion. That is a fairly logical approach. But I should not have thought that the local authority, in the circumstances which the noble Baroness has described, would come into the matter.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I push my noble friend a little further? Like myself, he is very anxious that everybody should operate to the highest professional standard, and I hope that they will do so. But one must conceive a situation where that is no longer so. There is no provision here for getting rid of somebody.
Let us suppose that the authority says, "You are sacked". What happens then? He will sue for libel, or he will claim damages. Ought there not to be some provision of some semi-judicial character which could look at the matter? I do not think that it should be dealt with by the law courts; this is a professional matter. If anyone falls below the level of the required professional standard, there should be some procedure for dealing with him on a professional basis and not simply on a judicial basis. I throw that thought out to the noble Lord because these things may happen and I am not at all sure that it would not be easier to make some provision at the present time.
Baroness Nicol: It seems to me that the whole success of the Bill from the Government's point of
1092
view hinges on this particular aspect. If the inspectors who are approved are inefficient or are not acceptable to the building profession or not respected by the building profession—and let us face it, the building profession is a pretty tough organisation at times—and if the approved inspectors do not have credibility and the members of the public do not clearly see that they are professional people on whom they can rely and if there is a fault they have a clear line of authority to follow in their complaints, then, with the greatest respect, I suggest that the Bill will prove to be rather a rubber ball from the Government's point of view because it will bounce back and cause a lot of difficulty. With the greatest respect, I should have thought that by now the Government should have come forward with more concrete suggestions than vague remarks about a body or bodies and where they may or may not come from. It seems to me that that is absolutely crucial to the whole success of the Bill and certainly crucial to its acceptance by noble Lords on this side of the Committee.
Baroness Denington: Perhaps I may pursue this point. I should have thought that it would be enormously helpful to the Government if they could get the co-operation of all the professional people involved in this exercise to agree jointly, and with the approval of the Government, to setting up a body. Indeed, the Government could set up the body with the approval and co-operation of those professional people. That one body might then have panels of inspectors with different qualifications at different levels. Perhaps at the lowest level—if I may use that expression—they would be competent to inspect two-storey houses and so on, and at the very highest level they would be competent to inspect the building which I think is fabulous—namely, the new Lloyd's building in the City which would need an inspector with enormous experience. If there were one body that was recognised nationally and composed of representatives from all the professions it would be a body of enormous standing giving enormous confidence. It could have panels, and as regards the very difficult question of somebody not doing his job properly it could ensure that he did not get another one.
Lord Swinfen: I have some sympathy with noble Lords opposite but there is at the same time difficulty. The way in which different materials are now coming into the building industry and the way in which technical advances are being made, means that the different professional bodies—engineers, architects, electrical and mechanical engineers—know the new advances in their own materials and what can be done with them. It is extremely difficult for any one, central body to keep up-to-date with all the new advances. They are different professions; they are almost different industries. Research is being carried out by different bodies.
I entirely see the point that noble Lords opposite are aiming for one centre of not just competence but excellence. But as a surveyor I know my limitations. No way would I take on the job of an approved inspector of some of the more modern buildings. I would not know where to start, because that is not where my expertise lies. It is possible that there are other surveyors who have qualified on the building

1093
side rather than on the valuation and general practice side—as I did—who would be qualified to do so. I should be competent to look at an ordinary house or a small block of flats. But I would not know where to begin with a building like the National Westminster Tower or some of the modern buildings that are going up in the City.
It is not a job for one body. For a building as large as that different inspectors would be needed for different parts of it. You would possibly need an inspector to deal with the structural steelwork; you might need another one to deal with the stressed concrete that goes into the building; you might need another on the purely mechanical engineering side to deal with the lifts; you would need someone else to deal with the very complicated electrical side; you would need a physicist of some sort who is competent to ensure that the foundations are satisfactory. In modern building these are all becoming very specialised techniques.
Although I appreciate that there is some little force in the arguments of noble Lords that they want one central body of expertise, all these different professions should liaise, must liaise and I am sure do liaise, to make certain that the new knowledge coming into all of them is passed on and discussed between them. Therefore new methods and new ideas can be made to work together—and made to work together safely—and in such a way that, as regards their knowledge, the building will remain upright, safe, usable and habitable for a very long time.
Lord Prys-Davies: I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. I should have thought that there is a great deal of common ground between what we are saying on this side of the Committee and what he has just said. From listening to the noble Lord, the conclusion that I have reached is that there is an interdependency of the specialities. If that is so, that should be reflected in the designating body. We are asking for all the disciplines to be represented on this body.
Baroness Birk: We have had quite a long and interesting debate on this subject. I agree with the noble Earl that in many parts of the Bill the wording is very flexible—and this is particularly so in this instance. I do not think that anything the Minister has said has convinced any of us; it certainly has not convinced me and my noble friends. The present wording permits a wide range of bodies able to supply different criteria, different views and differing degrees of discipline. We are asking—and I think that my noble friend answered very well the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—for one body to apply consistent standards, but this one body, as I was careful to explain, would be more of a panel of different professional people, with all the different expertise which the noble Lord mentioned.
Therefore, as I do not think that we shall get very much further in discussing this, I shall press the amendment.
6.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Balogh, L.

Lockwood, B.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Segal, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Moyne, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Craigavon, V.

Porrit, L.

Croft, L.

Portland, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Romney, E.

Daventry, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Davidson, V.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Donegall, M.

Selkirk, E.

Eccles, V.

Shannon, E.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Somers, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gainford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Tenby, V.

Grantchester, L.

Teynham, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trenchard, V.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 28, line 46, at end insert ("but shall in any event restrict the work to that in which the inspector has no interest apart from his normal fee as an inspector").
The noble Lord said: In my view, this is an important amendment. The precise wording may not be the best that could be produced, because I am not a lawyer, but the principle behind it is extremely important, in that there should be no conflict of interest with the "approved inspector". In other words, he may not act as the approved inspector on a development with which he is concerned either as the owner or prospective tenant, or if he is related to the developer, or indeed the building contractor, in any way. The concept of self-certification, as I am sure the Committee is aware, was rejected in the last century when architects and surveyors in London were forbidden to inspect their own work.
By not limiting this amendment purely to a financial interest I am trying to cover instances where pressure may be brought to bear on the approved inspector by such people as a spouse or other relative, or—although this is possibly rather difficult—a girlfriend of a son, or other relative, but that may be a little far-fetched. It is important that there should be no conflict of interest and that this should be written into the Bill. I hope that, if my noble friends are unable to accept the precise wording of the amendment, they will at least accept the principle and suggest other wording at another stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I should like briefly to support this amendment and to add one further point. It is difficult to find words to put into this Bill which would guarantee true independence. How independent does someone become if he works continuously for the same developer, or indeed for the same group of developers? Is it possible to spell this out in the Bill? Is it the Government's intention that this degree of independence should be obtained if possible, and are they seeking words in which to spell it out?
That is the main point I want to make. However, I should also like to say that it is obvious that he should not have any contact with the architects or anyone else who has had anything to do with the conception of the development in the first place. I am not sure whether the noble Lord made that point.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps it would be helpful in discussing my noble friend's amendment if I briefly explained the intention behind Clause 28 and in particular subsection (2), to which the amendment relates. Clause 28 will enable the Secretary of State to approve suitably qualified people to act as inspectors of building control work and to confer this power on bodies which he designates. The clause also provides for limitations to be attached to any approval, and subsection (2) is intended to ensure that inspectors are only approved to undertake the type of work for which their qualifications and experience fit them; if, for example, an inspector was suitable to certify low-rise housing, but not a more complex scheme, his approval would have to be limited accordingly. Clause 28(2) is therefore concerned with matters of professional qualifications and experience—in other words, the
1096
general fitness of a person to carry out the duties of an approved inspector.
Having said that, let me assure the Committee that we fully share the concern which underlies Amendment No. 42, that an approved inspector should be independent of the builder and developer. This was a principle set out in Cmnd. 8179, and we attach much importance to it. We propose to achieve this result by making regulations under Clause 26(1) which will prescribe that, as a general rule, an initial notice will have to contain a statement that the inspector is independent as far as the particular project is concerned. The test is to be that he must not be a member of a firm or partnership responsible in any other capacity for the design or construction of the work. Cmnd. 8179, however, also envisaged that in the case of minor works such as small single-storey house extensions, alterations within an existing house, and works to which only the thermal and sound insulation regulations apply, the requirement of independence might be waived. We want to keep this option open, and for that reason we should be reluctant to see independence made an absolute requirement in all cases.
But, as a general rule, if an initial notice does not contain a statement of the inspector's independence, it will be the duty of the local authority to reject it. This will be one of the prescribed grounds of rejection under Clause 26(2). A false statement in such a notice would in fact be a ground for prosecution under Clause 36. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Can my noble friend help me by defining "independence"? We have a problem here. He may be a beneficiary of a trust, or he may belong to a company which is going to take part of an office block—say, a suite of offices within the premises. He will then be an involved party. We get back to the problem that we are back to regulations which we do not know, we have not seen, and therefore we are discussing a hypothetical situation. Can my noble friend help us on this specific point by giving us a close definition of "independence"?
Lord Bellwin: My noble friend knows that I cannot, nor can anyone, give a definition of "independence". It will be a question of common sense, and if challenged later then it would be open to a judgment. Let me repeat what I said before, which was pretty categorical. We hope to achieve this position by making regulations. I agree they are not spelt out yet, but this is nothing new at all. This is common practice. If my noble friend, as I said before, has an input into the making of them, fine, that will be very good. The regulations will prescribe that, as a general rule, an initial notice will have to contain a statement that the inspector is independent so far as a particular project is concerned. I said that the test is to be that he must not be a member—and this may satisfy my noble friend—of a firm or partnership responsible in any other capacity for the design or construction of the work. I should have thought that that was pretty clear, and I hope my noble friend will think so too, but he must decide.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has said about interpreting the word "independent". Of course, the independent inspector is the local authority who will not be tied up with any organisation in any body and therefore will be completely neutral. He will inspect and there will be no reason to think that he will be anything other than independent. That is why we on this side of the House feel that perhaps the approved inspectors might find themselves in great difficulty as the workload is placed upon them, especially when contracts need to be fulfilled very quickly to keep the cash flow going in the building industry in which they are involved. If we want to define "independent" it is important that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, recognises, as I feel sure he will, that it is the local authority building control inspectors whom we can really designate as independent.
Lord Swinfen: I am not entirely satisfied with my noble friend's answer. I do not think he really expected me to be entirely satisfied. To give me a list of the people who might be connected with the approved inspector, to give cases where he may not carry out the work, is not really all that is required. There should be a certificate of some kind, possibly prescribed by the regulations, for him to give an instance of any other way in which he might be connected; whether he happens to be a beneficiary under a trust that owns the land or whether he is a trustee of a trust are examples, none of which has been covered by my noble friend. There are all kinds of other ways in which a man can have in a development an interest that may or may not be financial. He may be responsible for managing someone else's finances as a trustee but he still has an interest. Be that as it may, I would still prefer to see written into the Bill the fact that the inspector must be totally independent so that it would be a question of definitely breaking the law, not just a matter of regulations.
As we have heard earlier this afternoon no one has yet seen even the roughest draft of the regulations that might be produced under this Bill. However, I will read what my noble friend has said and will give consideration to it, and I may possibly bring this back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment 42A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: I would like in particular to pick up a point made by my noble friend the Minister on Second Reading and again this afternoon on the limitations of the work that the approved inspector can undertake. On Second Reading on 11th April he said:
"it will be possible to restrict approval to particular types of building depending on professional qualifications and experience.—[0fficial Report, 11/4/83; col. 17.]
I am not clear whether he is solely making the restriction to buildings or making restrictions within a type of building.
We have already heard this afternoon of the very different qualifications needed to certify any building.
1098
Therefore, is it going to be said, when it comes to office blocks for example, that the approved inspector can do only the structural steelwork and foundations, if that is his forte, and cannot do the brickwork or the roof?—because this would pose a situation which would defeat the whole object of the Bill, where one would have four or five independent inspectors working for a developer; and so far from encouraging a developer to go to an independent inspector he will go straight to the local authority on Day 1 and defeat the whole object of the Bill.
Another point I wish to raise is a very general one. At present a developer with his consulting engineer will deposit plans with the local authority. As likely as not if the development is complicated, in a vast majority of cases the local authority will delegate the work of checking the plans because local authorities just do not have the competence. They are very used to doing house extensions but when it comes to a complicated office block, which a small local authority will not have done before, that is delegated out. Fair enough. I thoroughly agree with that; but would it not have been easier in this Bill, for the task of actually approving the work, to say to local authorities, "You can delegate that out"? That would have saved quite a lot of time on this Bill and quite a lot of work. It could be done on exactly the same basis as it is being done now and the Government by various means could have encouraged local authorities to do exactly that.
Lord Bellwin: If my noble friend had worked as much with local authorities as I have he would know that the one thing they do not really want is a lot of encouragement of the kind he has just suggested; nevertheless, I take the point that he makes. I do not say that I do not sympathise with it but in practical terms that is not really what this is about. On the other point made by my noble friend, I can tell him that generally speaking the whole building is the responsibility of the inspector appointed. He may indeed subcontract—if that is the right word—to others to do work, but whether he does or does not, at the end of the day the responsibility is his. The responsibility is upon him and it will be for him to be sure that the standards are maintained.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Plans certificates]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 43
Page 30, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to ("give") in line 24.
The noble Earl said: The object of this amendment relates in part to an earlier amendment raised by my noble friend and myself on the initial plans. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has down an amendment (No. 48) which I believe seeks to do very much the same thing, to provide that a plan certificate should in every case be deposited with the developer, the local authority and the builder so that there is no dispute at a later date, particularly if there is to be litigation, as to exactly what was the final construction of the building. This is particularly important when one gets into the much more complicated construction in commercial development and it is essential that we should have a plan as built deposited with the developer and the local authority.
Lord Prys-Davies: I would very much like to support this amendment. It seems to me that time after time in this Bill we are in grey areas. Under the existing law we are on pretty firm ground. The rules have been built up over the years. Now we are moving forward into uncertainty and to uncertain ground. I should have thought that in the conditions envisaged in Clause 29(a) (b) and (c) there ought to be no discussion. If those conditions have been met then the approved inspector should give a certificate in the prescribed form. Too often we find that the rights and the duties are ill-defined in the Bill. I would support very much the deletion of the words from "shall" to "give" because it would mean that we have less discretion and are moving away from the grey areas.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support my noble friend. We have so far been talking about the construction of buildings but the demolition of them is sometimes even more important. With the very complicated and very highly stressed modern buildings, if you do not have the right plans when it comes to demolition and you wrongly cut a stressed part of the building, the rest of the building can literally explode and send bits of concrete and metal flying for a long way. I think that this is an added pointer to the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: I am not too sure about things exploding; I am doing my best not to do so myself. Can I say that acceptance by the local authority of a plan certificate will give the developer similar protection to that resulting from the passing of plans by the local authority under the current system; that is, in the event of responsibility reverting to the local authority, if it can be shown that work has been carried out in accordance with plans which the certifier has approved, the local authority will not be able to serve a notice requiring it to be taken down or altered on the ground that it contravenes the regulations. The apparent intention of this amendment is to make it obligatory for an approved inspector to give a plan certificate in all cases rather than only where the developer has requested it. At the moment, the Bill would allow an approved inspector who has not been asked to provide a plan certificate to use his discretion as to how far he scrutinised plans before building work began.
I would have thought that this provides a useful flexibility, as there is in the local authority system where there are arrangements for stage or provisional approval of plans. This is often essential in cases involving complex work. I have described the advantages which possession of a plan certificate gives to a developer but, at the end, it is a matter for him to decide whether he wants one and is prepared to pay the cost of getting one. We see no reasons for making plan certificates obligatory in all cases. That is why we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Birk: The noble Earl is quite right; my later amendment is slightly different but is on the same lines. We are again back to the Minister saying that we should keep this as flexible as possible. I say once again that we are in what my noble friend has called a grey
1100
area, and entirely different scenario from the context in which building control operates today. If this Bill goes on to the statute book it is going to be absolutely different because it is really moving away from the local authority to the area of privatisation. There is a tremendous responsibility on the people concerned, the people who are involved personally and financially, to make sure that every precaution is carried out. I think that this neat and simple amendment, which makes it obligatory to give a certificate, is absolutely right and ought to be accepted in the context of the Bill.
The flexibility in Government Bills seems always to be in the wrong place. It always puts everything to the Secretary of State who, it appears, has the last word. If it is something where it applies to the people concerned and is of great importance to them then it should not be left in this wide-open way; it should be obligatory to give a certificate. Therefore, I support what noble Lords opposite have been saying.
The Earl of Caithness: I was concerned by some of the remarks made by my noble friend. I think that he said at one stage that there were instances when some plans would not be needed. That rather worried me because the whole point that we were trying to make earlier was that we wanted plans with the initial notice, we wanted plans all the way through; because the approved inspector cannot do his job without the plans. I should like to discuss with my noble friend instances where he can operate without plans. I would think that they are few and far between. I cannot think of one at the moment.
He also mentioned plan certificates on part of the building. I am all in favour of that. It is an excellent idea that, as you are proceeding with the structure and you have done your foundations, you get the plan certificate then. I am not complaining about that. All I want is deposited with the local authority the plans as the development is built at the end of the day. You have 14 or 15 changes of the staircase, of the lift, how it will tie in and how it affects the foundations—you can forget all of those. We want a final plan at the end of the day, as built. I would ask my noble friend to reconsider that point because I think it is extremely important.
Lord Bellwin: I have nothing to add. Of course, I will discuss with my colleagues, as always, everything that is said here. If they feel that there has been something omitted here along the lines of what my noble friend has said, then we shall want to do something about it. That is the only helpful comment I can make.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for that. I should very much like to discuss it with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve my right to bring it back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Swinfen: Very quickly, I see no provisions in this clause or elsewhere in the Bill to cover cases where there are changes in the building proposal. I am sure

1101
that my noble friend is aware that on the large buildings which are being constructed today there are continuous changes throughout the construction of the building. Some buildings take years to construct, notably some Government buildings; so my noble friend must be aware of the changes that take place and some provision, I think, should be made for this in the Bill. I wonder if he would consider bringing in an amendment later that will cover this point.
Lord Bellwin: I cannot give such an assurance. I can only repeat what I have said to my noble friend Lord Caithness. Together with colleagues and experts we will take careful note of what has been said. That I undertake to do.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Final certificates]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 31, line 32, after ("completed") insert ("and when the building or part is occupied").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I think it would be appropriate to speed matters by speaking to Amendment No. 45 at the same time as moving this amendment. It is a very simple amendment relating to occupation of a building. We all must realise that there is often a considerable delay before all the building work is completed, but that, during the latter stages of that, the building might be occupied. The amendment put forward in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Swinfen is designed for the local authority to be notified that occupation has taken place. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I fear that Amendment No. 44 may have an effect which my noble friend would not desire. Clause 30, to which the amendment relates, provides that an approved inspector shall give a final certificate to the developer and to the local authority when work specified in an initial notice has been satisfactorily completed. This certificate can relate to the whole of the work specified in an initial notice, or to only part of it. For example, in the case of a housing development, where a single initial notice covered an entire estate, a final certificate given under Clause 30 could relate to all the houses together; or separate notices could be given for each house.
The only thing that governs the timing of these final certificates is the satisfactory completion of the work itself. As soon as the inspector has satisfied himself that the job—or a part of it—has been done properly, he can give his certificate, and thus "sign it off". Amendment No. 44 would prevent him doing this. He would have to wait until the building was occupied. Then, and only then, would he be able to serve his final certificate that the work was satisfactory.
This is surely the wrong way round. It must be better to try to ensure that the building is satisfactorily completed before it is occupied. This is certainly what the Government intend to do. We propose to make regulations under Clause 26(4) which will provide that an initial notice ceases to have effect when a building is occupied, or within a specified time of occupation. This will, of course, mean that unless there were a final
1102
certificate from an approved inspector, confirming compliance with the regulations, the local authority's powers of enforcement would then revive, so that any potentially dangerous contraventions could be rectified. In practice, this will mean that final certificates have to be given either before occupation or virtually simultaneously with it. I hope that my noble friend will agree that this is a sensible and necessary safeguard.
The present Amendment No. 44 would prevent this, and that is why I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw it. Amendment No. 45, I think, is in some way consequential.
The Earl of Caithness: I will read very carefully what my noble friend has said. I was only trying to be helpful to the local authority where building works had not been completed or received a final certificate. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think this is probably an appropriate moment to break for the dinner adjournment. Before moving that the House do now resume, I think it would be for the interest of your Lordships to say that we will not resume consideration of this Bill until 7.40. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) (Long-term Rates) Amendment Regulations 1983
7.2 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) (Longterm Rates) Amendment Regulations 1983 be approved. These regulations are quite straightforward, though in explaining them I shall need also to refer to the Social Security and Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1983, which were made on 24th March 1983 and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. They are entirely beneficial in their effects. They have been accepted as such by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which agreed that they need not be formally referred to it.
The general background is as follows. Supplementary benefit is paid at two basic rates for adults: the ordinary rate and the long-term rate. The long-term rate is currently higher by £10.60 a week than the ordinary rate for couples and £7 higher for single householders. Supplementary pensions are paid at the long-term rate automatically. Supplementary allowances are paid at the long-term rate to claimants who have spent a year on the ordinary rate, excluding unemployed claimants under 60, who cannot qualify for the long-term rate. Before 1981 no unemployed claimant could qualify for the long-term rate, but it was then extended by the present Government to

1103
unemployed men over 60 who have been receiving supplementary benefit for a year, in the same way as to other claimants.
The effect of the present regulations is, from 30th May 1983, to extend automatic entitlement to the long-term scale rates without any qualifying period, to male claimants aged 60 or over. In effect, this will place them in the same position with regard to supplementary benefit as women, who receive supplementary pensions at 60, though the technical distinction between supplementary pensions and allowances will remain.
The parallel change which we are making, with effect from 30th May, is to remove the requirement from unemployed men over 60 to be available for work as a condition for receiving supplementary benefit. This is effected by the Social Security and Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1983. At present the requirement to be available for work is only removed after they have been in receipt of supplementary benefit for a year. The effect of the change is that all men over 60 receiving supplementary benefit—not just those who have been unemployed for a year—will be able to get benefit on an order book, rather than by having to sign on at an unemployment benefit office.
My Lords, about 79,000 men will benefit from these changes; of these about 37,000 will be sick or disabled, and for the majority of them the regulations will solve the "invalidity trap". The remaining 42,000 will be mainly men at present signing on as unemployed, and the regulations will simply make the long-term scale rate payable to them without their having to spend a year on the ordinary rate first.
The changes do not mean that all unemployed men over 60 are to be written off as far as the employment market is concerned. They can go on looking for work, either by registering at a Job Centre or in any other way they may choose, in the same way as everyone else. These regulations simply recognise the fact that many of these men will in effect have retired from full-time work. For them the mechanical process of proving availability for work by signing on at an unemployment benefit office for a year before qualifying for the long-term scale rate is not really appropriate.
I hope that your Lordships will welcome this extension of the long-term scale rate to older unemployed men. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1983
7.6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1983, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th March, be approved. This draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It seeks to add three drugs, sufentanil, tilidate and dextropropoxyphene to the list of drugs controlled
1104
under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It is the fifth such order to come before the House since the 1971 Act was passed. As the technical nature of these orders sometimes presents difficulties to the layman, we have placed in the Library of the House a memorandum explaining the background to the order in rather more detail than is possible in the Explanatory Memorandum appended to the order itself.
This Order has been drafted to enable the United Kingdom to comply with its obligations as a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. In 1980, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided, on the advice of the World Health Organisation, that the risk of abuse of these three drugs was similar to that presented by drugs already subject to international control under the 1961 Convention. Sufentanil, tilidate and dextropropoxyphene were therefore brought within the scope of the convention. As a party to that convention, the United Kingdom is obliged to control these three drugs under its domestic legislation—that is, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Under Section 2(5) of that Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is required, before laying the draft of an order or making a regulation, to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Advisory Council has therefore been consulted about the régime of control appropriate to sufentanil, tilidate and dextropropoxyphene, taking into account the degree of control imposed internationally under the United Nations Convention and the likelihood of misuse in this country. The council found that there was at present no evidence of misuse in the United Kingdom sufficient to justify any control under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, in order to meet our international obligations and as a measure to prevent misuse in the future, the council recommended appropriate régimes of control under the Act and regulations for each of these three drugs.
The Misuse of Drugs Act and subordinate regulations made under it provide for drugs to be controlled to varying degrees according to their harmful effects if misused, the extent of their legitimate use and their value in medical practice. Thus, Schedule 2 to the Act, which lists the drugs controlled, is divided into three classes. Those classes determine the maximum penalties available to the courts for offences committed under the Act, Class A attracting the highest penalties. The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1973 provide exemptions from the general prohibitions in the Act in order to allow the legitimate use of controlled drugs for therapeutic purposes. Thus each controlled drug which is listed in the schedule to the Act also needs to be placed in one of four schedules contained in the regulations, depending on the régime of control which seems most appropriate, given the nature, likely medical use and risk of misuse of the drug in question.
This means that, in order to bring a drug under the control of the misuse of drugs legislation, two stages are necessary. First, an Order in Council has to be made so that the drug can be added to the list of those already controlled by the Act. Then, when the order has been made, amending regulations are needed to provide an appropriate degree of control over the legitimate use of the drug. What is now before your

1105
Lordships' House is the draft Order in Council: under the 1971 Act, this must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. If the draft is approved and the order made, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make amending regulations, which will be laid before Parliament and be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The régimes of control proposed in respect of these three drugs, in accordance with the decision of the United Nations Commission and the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, are as follows: Sufentanil is an analgesic or pain-killer. No preparations containing this drug are thought to be in use in this country; but the drug is similar to fentanyl, which is already controlled as a Class A drug. Similar controls are therefore proposed for sufentanil—Class A under the Act, and Schedule 2 of the regulations. Drugs controlled under Schedule 2 of the regulations are subject to licensing requirements for their commercial manufacture and wholesale dealing, and to strict record-keeping and safe custody requirements; such drugs are available to the general public only on prescription.
Tilidate is also a pain-killer. It is manufactured in Germany, where it has been misused. As with sufentanil, no preparations of the drug are thought to be in medical use in this country. The régime of control proposed is identical to that proposed for sufentanil: Class A under the Act and Schedule 2 of the regulations.
The third drug, dextropropoxyphene, is also a painkilling drug; it is used in the preparation of several medicines available in this country. The proposals being made in respect of this drug are slightly more complex, since the United Nations Commission made a distinction between the drug itself and preparations containing only small quantities or proportions of the drug. The draft order proposes that dextropropoxyphene—DXP for short, in future—should be a Class C drug, and the regulations will provide for it to be controlled under Schedule 2. However, preparations containing not more than a stated quantity or proportion of the drug will be placed in Schedule 1 of the regulations, which means that such preparations will be subject only to controls over their manufacture and supply.
The relevant manufacturers and trade associations have been told of the proposals embodied in the draft order; they are already making any necessary preparations to implement them, and will be given further advice when the statutory procedures have been completed. I hope that this rather lengthy explanation of the draft order has enabled your Lordships to understand its somewhat technical nature. To sum up, the order is needed to give effect to our obligations under an international drugs control treaty. Its proposals, and those of subsequent amending regulations which will be laid before Parliament if the order is made, are based upon recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th March be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that what is left of the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the clear way in which he has explained this order to us. It comes by virtue of the powers in a very important Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, and, also, it is directly connected with international conventions into which we have entered. I took the trouble to communicate with the Pharmaceutical Society, as to whether there was any point at all that they would wish to have brought to your Lordships' attention. As has been properly said, they are perfectly content that these narcotic analgesic drugs should be controlled under the Act.
I am very sorry that I did not have an opportunity of communicating this to the noble Lord the Minister beforehand, and I promise him faithfully that that is not a preface to putting some dreadful technical question to him, which would be by way of a trap. That is something which no Member of your Lordships' House would ever endeavour to put in the way of a Minister, or, indeed, any fellow Member who is not a Minister.
But I took the trouble to do my homework and referred back to the Act. I merely draw the Minister's attention to this in case I am right and he therefore wants to see that the order is amended. I am going extremely slowly, and it is a very small point, but if he would look at paragraph 2 of the order he will see that it states:
"Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act … shall be amended as follows:—"
Then, in sub-paragraph (a) it states:
"in paragraph 1(a) of Part I of that Schedule"—
that is, Schedule 2—
"there shall be inserted"
and then the drugs are mentioned.
If your Lordships will turn to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and look at Schedule 2, Part I, you will find that there is not a paragraph 1(a). If you look at page 30 of the Act, you will see the heading "Part I Class A Drugs" and then there is only paragraph 1 and subsequent paragraphs. I believe that somebody, when drawing up this order, must have looked at Class A Drugs and erroneously put "(a)" after paragraph 1.
Those observations are not meant to be earthshaking in their relevance to the speech that was made by the noble Lord the Minister on this order. I am merely trying to be helpful, because I think that a mistake has been made in the order. I discovered this only when doing my homework this afternoon, but I imagine that the noble Lord the Minister will be grateful for having his attention drawn to this matter, if I am right. If he finds that I am wrong, I shall apologise to your Lordships for having wasted your time.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out what he believes to be an error in the drafting. If that is the case—and I shall have to take a minute or two to look at it—then we will make sure that the necessary correction is made. I can assure the noble Lord that he is not wasting my time or anybody else's.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister has the Act in front of him, and if he will kindly look at page 30, which is the Schedule 2 referred to in the order, I am sure he will not find a paragraph 1(a). It requires no detailed examination to see whether that is right or wrong.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am advised that paragraph 1(a) was inserted by an amending order of 1977—the Misuse of Drugs (Modification) Order. I hope that that may clear up the point which the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful; but if that be so—and only so that there is clarity in the future—it is not helpful to your Lordships' House to have a reference to Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which says: "shall be amended as follows", and to have a reference to a paragraph which is, presumably, brought in by an amending order to which no reference is made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is a fairly technical point. But my copy of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is amended, and I think I am right in saying that in paragraph 2 of the order, which reads "(which, as amended (b),", the (b) indicates the various amendments which were made and which affected the 1971 Act. So I think that the point is covered.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.18 to 7.40 p.m.]

Housing and Building Control Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 30.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46:
Page 32, line 2, leave out from ("notice") to second ("the") in line 3.
The noble Earl said: This amendment is quite complicated and I should like to discuss it with my noble friend in due course. Very quickly, in order to save the time of the Committee now, the amendment relates to certificates which have been accepted by the local authority and which imply that the local authority has some discretion, and therefore some duty, to act where they might not have.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 32, line 5, after ("27(1)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment stands alone, but it is a very minor amendment. It is in fact
1108
dependent upon the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 58. It might be for the convenience of the Committee and possibly of the noble Lord the Minister if I do not press it. If the noble Lord agrees to Amendment No. 58, as I hope he will, then this very minor matter could be put right by him later, or by me on Report. Can the noble Lord say whether he thinks that would be helpful?
Lord Bellwin: The noble Viscount tempts me sorely: would that I could say, Yes. I fear that I shall have some difficulty, but, as he knows from our previous discussions on other legislation in the past, I hope to be not less than helpful.
Viscount Hanworth: Does the noble Lord accept the amendment?
Lord Bellwin: Very much not. I have to say in all fairness that I have a difficulty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 32, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) A final certificate given under this section to a local authority shall be accompanied by detailed plans of the work which has been completed.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I may speak to Amendment No. 54 together with Amendment No. 48 because the same basic supporting arguments apply to both.
We have now arrived at the completion stage. Earlier, we were at the initial stage. There were no detailed plans at the initial stage, but we now come to the completion stage and, as the Bill now stands, there is no provision for detailed plans to be deposited with the local authority or with anyone else. The purpose of both amendments is to ensure that, when the approved inspector's final certificate is given to the local authority, or when the public body's final certificate is given, detailed plans of the work will also be handed over to the local authority.
As the Bill now stands, there will, when it becomes the law of the land, be no requirement for the approved inspector to provide detailed plans to the local authority. We consider that to be a serious omission. One does not need a great deal of foresight to foresee circumstances in which one will require to see the plans. One might require access to the plans if it is necessary to alter the buildings, or maybe because a defect emerges some time in the future. Or again, it may become necessary to demolish the building. In that situation, the approved inspector or the developer may not be available and a search for the plans could prove fruitless.
Even if the approved inspector could be tracked down, there is no duty on the inspector to retain the plans once the final certificate has been issued. It therefore becomes necessary, we believe, to provide for such contingencies and to ensure that detailed plans are deposited with the local authority, as the depositary of such plans.
One other point that can be made in favour of this amendment is that a certified plan of the completed works lodged with the final certificate would have about it a quality of performance. The need for an

1109
inspector to certify the plan, or for the public body to certify the plan, will ensure that the inspector or the public body do their homework. I would have thought that no approved inspector would lightly certify a plan as being true which he knew to be untrue. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: If I may refer first to Amendment No. 54, perhaps I may remind the Committee that under Clause 33 the Secretary of State will be able to approve certain public bodies to supervise work which they carry out on their own buildings, if they so wish; Schedule 6 provides the necessary mechanism. Both amendments will have a similar effect in requiring final certificates, whether given by an inspector or a public body, to be accompanied by plans of the work as built.
I suggest that we consider what effect the amendments will have in three different situations. The first situation is where all the work which was the subject of the initial notice has been completed to the satisfaction of the approved inspector or public body, so that the final certificate relates to the whole work. In this case a requirement that detailed plans should be provided would merely be for the local authority's record purposes. We do not see the justification for making this a statutory requirement. Local authorities are not required to keep plans for record purposes under the present system. These amendments would lay a new statutory obligation upon authorities which we do not think is necessary.
The second situation to consider is where the final certificate relates to only part of the work described in an initial notice—for example, some of the houses in an estate or some identifiable part of a major development—where the certifier or public body is still responsible for the remainder of the work, or alternatively where a second certifier may be taking over from the first. Again, we see no justification for requiring detailed plans of satisfactory work to be given to the local authority.
The third situation is where a certifier withdraws and responsibility is to revert to the local authority. In this case, he may be able to give a final certificate in respect of some of the work. It will however be an offence under the new building regulations, as it is now under Regulation A 10, for the developer to continue work until full plans have been deposited with the local authority. These plans would have to relate to all work or proposed work which was not the subject of a final certificate. We have, however, provided powers in the Bill, in Clause 32(4), to make regulations to the effect that in such a situation the local authority are also to be provided with plans of the work which has been certified, which they might need for information purposes in considering the rest of the plans. In this case, therefore, we have already effectively provided in the Bill what Amendment No. 48 seeks to provide. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord can accept this and will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Birk: I do not think, listening to what the Minister has said in reply to my noble friend, that it is really correct: it is not provided in the Bill, and that is why we are moving this amendment. We have to
1110
recognise that both professionals and members of the public currently use this facility regularly and the Joint Committee on Building Regulations has emphasised the need for plans of existing buildings to be kept by local authorities and to be available for perusal by those who have a legitimate interest in this. We are in a new climate, because, with the introduction of the approved inspector, there will be no requirement, as it stands, to provide plans for the local authority. As a result there will be a serious diminution in the information available to the public and the professions, especially when they are wishing to make alterations to buildings in the future. My noble friend spelled out some of the consequences that could result.
What we are concerned about is that, as this is currently drafted, there is no obligation on the approved inspector to retain the plans once the final certificate has been issued, except for his own personal record purposes. We feel that this is an extremely important cautionary point. This is something I really should have thought the Government would have accepted, especially as it is a question of having detailed building plans and knowing that they are there to be consulted, and able to be referred to when anything goes wrong. Otherwise, the whole thing seems to be too wide open. We have seen on the other amendments the amount of unease that there has been, and I think there is even more on this amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Minister to deal with the three scenarios which I mentioned: first, that in 20 or 30 years' time it becomes necessary to demolish the building or in 20 to 30 years' time a defect emerges. Where will one find the plans of the building in 20 or 30 years' time? There is no provision anywhere in the Bill that the plan will be deposited at a permanent registry; so where does one go in 20 or 30 years' time in those circumstances?
Lord Bellwin: If I can just answer the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, you would go to exactly the same place as you go now, because there is no requirement at the present time for local authorities to get or to retain as-built plans. The obligation that the amendment proposes would impose new burdens on local authorities as well as on developers.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With regard to what the noble Lord has just said, of course there are new circumstances. I readily accept that the local authorities do not have to have the plans at the present moment. But building becomes much more complicated, as noble Lords have said previously, it is not a case of bricks and mortar any more; building is very complicated in an industrial way of supplying the needs not only of householders but of commercial and industrial users. As building becomes much more complicated one would have thought it would be much more important for these plans to be deposited with the local authority.
Local authorities have—not a grapevine, that is not the word—a contact with one another, either through their associations or through the professional bodies. If we take the case of the cement that caused a great deal of controversy, or the asbestos which was causing a

1111
great deal of public anxiety, more often than not such interest starts from a local authority being concerned about these things, and, if their concern is well-founded, obviously the Secretary of State will normally act upon that. We have seen that in the case of the cement and the asbestos. Take the case of Ronan Point, where it was found that there was a need to give greater structural support on the lower levels of blocks of flats. This information will more often than not come from local authorities, because in the past they have been using the building trade regulations and they have to operate them.
What concerns us is whether the people who operate the building trade regulations in the future will be passing on this information. This information is important, because it all has to do with public safety. If it is not passed on to the local authorities, more disasters may take place than will otherwise be the case. I accept what the Minister has said, that at the present time the local authorities do not have to have plans, but if the building control is taken away from them in many cases they will not know the difficulties and problems, because the independent inspectors will have no kind of cross-fertilisation of information as the local authorities would have. The local authority is perhaps normally concentrating on public safety and therefore makes its views quite well-known to the Departments and to the Ministers.
While local authorities have not had these plans in the past, there may be a need to look at this again, and we are asking that the final plans should go to the local authority. If I may digress, when we were discussing the Water Bill we were talking about sewers; this is all part and parcel of the plans of the local authority, as sewers are, so that local authorities are aware of the problems in the areas in which they have to deal with them. One would have thought that if there were to be any problems in the future quite obviously it would be important for the local authority to have the plans.
The Earl of Caithness: I sympathise with the points being made on the other side of the Committee. This is a very similar discussion to that which we had earlier on our Amendment No. 43, which I withdrew. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, so that we can discuss our thoughts on this before coming back at a later stage.
Lord Prys-Davies: I had a feeling that the noble Lord the Minister had a great deal of sympathy for the case, but obviously sympathy is no substitute for acceptance. We have a duty to the future, and I have a feeling that if we go along without the detailed plans then we are stoking up a great deal of trouble for the future. Therefore, I think I must press the amendment to a Division.
7.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 26; Not-Contents, 46.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bishopston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Phillips, B.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trenchard, V.

Grantchester, L.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.6 p.m.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Cancellation of initial notice]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Effect of initial notice ceasing to be in force]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 34, line 27, at end insert—
("(8) In any case to which this section applies the local authority may serve on the person carrying out or intending to carry out the work a notice requiring him to cease all work for a period not exceeding 21 days.
(9) The local authority shall not be liable for any financial loss incurred by the person carrying out or intending to carry out the work or any other person as a result of the service or compliance with a notice under section 32(8) above.
(10) A notice served under 32(8) shall be deemed to be served on a person carrying out or intending to carry out the work if it is affixed to, on, or as near as practicable to the works.
(11) In any case to which this section applies the local authority may require work to be done which rectifies any contravention of the Building Regulations and shall not be liable for any financial loss arising therefrom.")
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we are trying to make quite sure that when a building project reverts to the local authority from an approved inspector because, for some reason or another, the inspector ceases to function or is unable to satisfy himself that the work is being carried out in compliance with the building regulation—that is, when he stops doing that job for any reason at all and the local authority has to step in—that the local authorities are concerned with certification which may arise from a number of instances. When they move on to the site or come to deal with particular houses, they might find work carried out not in line with the building regulations. Although the work might have been certified, they might be concerned that some of the regulations have not been conformed with.
If anybody continued to build on top of the foundations or on to any part of the building, the building might even become unsound. There might be a serious danger either because the approved inspector was not satisfied originally with how the contractor was doing his work, and that was why he moved off the site or was asked to remove himself from the site, or because of a builder going bankrupt and the local authority moving in and somebody else taking over the job. There can be cases where the plans which have been forwarded to the local authority will clearly show defects of work, or defects might happen in spite of the plans that they have been shown.
The amendment would provide the opportunity for the local authority to require the work to be carried out in accordance with the building regulations or to be altered. Where the work reverts to the local authority due to a dispute, we are concerned that they should have the benefit of the prior submission of the plans and of seeing the progress of the work to date. If they find a serious defect in the property, they should be able to ask for the building to stop, the defects to be looked at seriously and an attempt made to correct them. In the interim period, when they are examining the defect and trying to correct it, we are asking for 21 days so that the defect can be looked at seriously. Therefore I beg to move the amendment standing in our name.
Lord Bellwin: The effect of Amendment No. 52 would be to add four more subsections to Clause 32, of which the first, subsection (8), is the main one. This would allow a local authority, whenever an initial notice ceased to be in force, to issue a "stop-notice" requiring a developer to stop doing any more work on the building, in this case for 21 days.
The first thing I should like to say about this is that, when an initial notice ceases to be in force, it does not necessarily follow that responsibility for supervising the work passes to the local authority. It will often be possible for the developer to engage a second certifier to take over from the first, and regulations will be made so that this can happen. Indeed, we expect that the occasions on which the responsibility will pass to the local authority will be very rare, given the delays and costs to the developer which could result.
1114
Obviously it would be wrong to allow the issue of a stop notice where a second certifier was taking over. Equally in those cases where the responsibility does pass to the local authority, it is important that they have the necessary powers to discharge that responsibility, and we intend to provide for this. In the first place regulations will require that full plans will have to be deposited with the local authority. Secondly—and this is a vital point—it will automatically be an offence under the regulations to continue building until these plans have been deposited.
Even more serious for the developer is the fact that the local authority will be empowered to require any work which is not the subject of a final certificate to be taken down or uncovered for the purposes of satisfying themselves that it complies with the regulations. A developer who allowed work to continue after the initial notice had been cancelled, and before the local authority had become substantially involved in inspecting the work, would be running the risk of having to take it down.
For these reasons, we do not see the need to allow local authorities to issue "stop-notices". The important thing is surely to have the power to examine and check work, and to have it put right if necessary. Authorities will have these powers under the Bill as drafted, and developers would know that they had those powers. Therefore, we see no justification for a blanket power to hold up all work on all sites. Under the regulations at present no such powers have been found necessary to deal with unauthorised work.
I am speaking also, as I hope was the noble Baroness, to Amendments Nos. 55 and 57. The new subsections (9) and (10) contained in Amendment No. 52 are merely consequential on (8), and I shall not comment on them. As regards new subsection (11), where local authorities require work to be taken down under their existing powers in Section 65 of the Public Health Act 1936 (which are the powers they would be using in these circumstances), they are not liable for any financial loss on the part of the developer arising as a result.
In the light of these comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the amendments ought to be withdrawn, and I invite her so to do.
Baroness Birk: I think that we are back again in the trap that we keep on coming to in this Bill—the flexibility and open-endedness of it. We are in an entirely different situation. We are not in the same situation with the local authority having complete control over all this. We are in a situation now where there is privatisation and where there are approved inspectors. The stop notice would give the local authority some breathing space and would also encourage the developer to reconcile things and work things out with the approved inspector. As we see it, the end result of the amendment ought to avoid the involvement of the local authority. In fact, it ought to help things along once a building owner has decided to take the private certifier route. The Minister said that the provision will be in regulations. As I have said before, there is a point beyond which it is difficult for us to accept so much government by regulation. Plans will have to be deposited. But if that is so, it seems to

1115
me that this amendment just underlines the position and emphasises what ought to be done. It puts it on the face of the Bill.
As we are also talking about Amendments Nos. 55 and 57, No. 55 goes into the penalty area, and in No. 57 we have what makes sense nowadays. It deals with the fine. It says that there should be:
"a maximum daily fine of £1,000 for each day the offence continues".
I believe that it is important to have a figure put in. There was an error originally. The Minister will no doubt have noticed that the word "maximum" has now been put in. It was left out by mistake originally. There should be a realistic fine to deal with any offences in the light of the inflation today. This is one of the amendments which I should have thought the Minister would have accepted. If it is a question of the way that it is drafted, I do not think that that is all that important. If there are any holes that he finds in the drafting, it can be altered. It is the principle of the amendment that is extremely important. I hope that the Minister will consider this and perhaps make a different decision from the one that he has made at the moment or at least decide that he will take it back and look at it.
Baroness Nicol: I raised this particular point at Second Reading, and subsequently the Minister very kindly wrote a letter to me and drew my attention to what he thought were the safeguards in this situation. If I may, I should like to quote from the letter:
"When a local authority takes over responsibility they will have their full enforcement powers and will be able to have any uncertified work opened up for inspection. There will thus be a strong disincentive to any developer inclined to continue work before the local authority have taken over the supervision".
I feel that opening up work which has been completed is not perhaps as simple as all that, if a number of days elapse between the local authority's arrival and the departure of the approved inspector who, let us face it, may leave in haste. There could be covered up a considerable amount of work which it would be impossible to open up for inspection, and that is one of the main reasons why I consider that the power to issue a stop notice is so important.
The maximum fine of £1,000 for each day need never have to be imposed, but it is a useful fall-back in the case of a developer who insists on carrying on regardless. I was very interested in the reply given by the noble Lord the Minister a little earlier. I am afraid that I missed part of it, and I want to read it carefully before I make any further comment. However unless he said a lot that I did not hear, I would still consider a stop notice to be essential in these circumstances.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: In view of what the noble Lord has said, and because we think that matters of public safety might be involved, we intend to divide the Committee.
8.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 24; Not-Contents, 40.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Denington, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleraine, L.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Glanusk, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Vivian, L.

Grantchester, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Giving, acceptance and effect of public body's notice]:
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 34, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) ensures that the work is to be adequately supervised by an Approved Inspector,").
The noble Baroness said: Public bodies provide and use a wide range of buildings from operational buildings to shops and houses. We should expect the same high standards from them that we expect from private developers. The amendment seeks to ensure that either the bodies concerned have persons on their staffs who have been appointed as approved inspectors or they use the services of local authorities or other approved inspectors. This may not be the best wording but if the Minister accepts the principle, a better form could be produced. I have read the provisions headed "Consultation" in Schedule 6 on page 66 and noted them as well as one is able. But we are not aware of what form the many prescriptions may take. We cannot therefore assess the value of the provisions. They may well cover this point, and I am sure that this is what the Minister will say.
I would have thought that this amendment would appeal to the Government because it extends the field into which their private inspectors can go in the event of public bodies not having suitable persons who can be appointed as approved inspectors. It would seem to me to have the added advantage of an increased and improved standard on what existed before. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: In order to be eligible for approval as a self-certifier, a public body will have to act under enactment for public purposes and not for its own profit. The categories from which self-certifying bodies would be chosen could include, broadly speaking, most statutory undertakers, nationalised industries and municipal undertakings.
These bodies are at present required to deposit full plans and submit their works to local authority inspection, with the exception of statutory undertakers which are entirely exempt from the building regulations in respect of their operational buildings only under Section 71 of the Public Health Act 1936.
Amendment No. 53 would require any bodies which were approved as self-certifiers to employ approved inspectors to supervise their building work. By removing the bodies' option of employing their own servants or agents, the amendment effectively nullifies one of the purposes of Clause 33, which is to give extra flexibility and choice to those bodies which can be trusted to carry out building control work responsibly.
This is the key point. Only those bodies which can be trusted to act responsibly will be approved. Since Parliament has already demonstrated its trust in such bodies, as I have mentioned, by giving them specific statutory functions to perform for the benefit of the public, there is a case for trusting them to make their own arrangements for ensuring that the building regulations requirements are met. This of course depends on how answerable are the bodies. If there is strong representation on them at top level of democratically elected local authorities, or if they are within the responsibilities of Ministers answerable to Parliament, there must be a strong presumption that they can be trusted to behave responsibly, and this must include choosing suitably qualified agents or employees to undertake the job of building control.
Local building control authorities, of course, are not obliged—and will not be obliged—to employ as building inspectors people with the qualifications which will be necessary for approved inspectors. The essential point is that the body itself should be trustworthy.
We have not yet decided precisely which bodies might be approved. In case any of your Lordships have in front of you copies of Command Paper 8179, The Future of Building Control In England and Wales, I should say that the list of bodies in Annex A is highly conjectural. We shall consult fully before making a final choice and shall bear firmly in mind the need for the bodies concerned to be accountable and responsible.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, having heard what I have said, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Listening to the noble Lord, one can appreciate that there are statutory bodies which have been in difficulties on occasion. One recalls the consternation—I would not use the word "scandal"—that has arisen over certain hospital buildings. The noble Lord will perhaps not need to have his attention drawn to what have been revealed as certain defects, even during the past 18 months, which have been the subject of press publicity. It makes one wonder whether what the noble Lord states really operates in practice. It is for that reason that we have moved the amendment.
One would like to feel that what the noble Lord says really happens. However, in the case of certain hospitals, one is led to believe that all the safeguards have perhaps not been taken. I ask the noble Lord to give this matter a great deal more consideration. It is not a case of the local authorities feeling themselves to be a superior body to anyone else. However, the fact that they act as a statutory body and ensure that the buildings they erect come under the building regulations and meet other necessary requirements makes them feel that all other statutory bodies should accept the same principle. I do not wish to repeat myself, but that does not always seem to be the case.
Baroness Nicol: The Minister kept referring to the trustworthiness of these bodies. I am sure that they are trustworthy. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that they have the appropriate expertise. I shall read with care the noble Lord's answer. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Provisions consequential upon public body's notice]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 55, 56, and 57 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
8.38 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of local authority under s. 36
—.A local authority having reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under section 36 of this Act has been committed—

(a) may for the purpose of ascertaining whether it has been committed, require a person who has carried out work under an initial notice and a person who is an inspector to produce any documents relating to the work;

(b) has the power to institute proceedings for any contravention".).

The noble Lord said: This is the substantive amendment about which I spoke when I withdrew Amendment No. 47. I think that my reasons for withdrawing Amendment No. 47 were not completely understood. It was classified as a stand-alone amendment when it was, in fact, concerned with this

1119
amendment. I could have spoken to this amendment then. I preferred not to do so, because I thought that it might disturb some people and also I wished to hear what was said about other amendments. I am afraid that, although I do not disagree with the Government's views on doing some more privatisation, this amendment and the others that I shall move subsequently are concerned with the fact that the Government seem to have forgotten the safeguards. I find this extraordinary. Clause 30 provides that local authority enforcement can be exercised for work that has been supervised by an approved private inspector. This seems a mistaken provision as it provides no possibility of having a double check. It might almost be said that it makes it easy for corruption to occur. All the amendment does is to seek to remedy this state of affairs and it means that if the council have real reasons for feeling that something has gone wrong, they can still do something about it.
Surely a double check or the ability to have a double check is something we require in almost every walk of life. Yet not only as regards this provision but, as I shall show, as regards subsequent provisions, the Government seem to have abandoned all ideas of having this double check. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Clause 36 creates two offences relating to false or misleading statements in initial notices, plans certificates and final certificates. It will be an offence to give a notice or certificate which the person giving it knows to contain a false or misleading statement. It will also be an offence to give a notice or certificate recklessly where it contains a false or misleading statement.
The purpose of this amendment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has said, is to enable a local authority which suspects that such an offence has been committed to require the developer or approved inspector to produce any documents—not just particular documents, any documents—relating to the work. Presumably they would want plans in order to check them, and if they considered the plans showed a contravention they would then have the power under paragraph (b) of the amendment to prosecute for a contravention of the building regulations. The amendment seeks to give the local authority power to interfere with work which has been certified, thereby exposing the local authority to the risk that they may in some measure be found responsible and liable for work carried out under the professional supervision of an approved inspector. I have already explained to your Lordships that responsibility for certified work must remain with the approved inspector, and I respectfully submit that local authorities do not want to be put in a position of responsiblity themselves in a situation of this kind.
I know that the noble Viscount is concerned about safeguards. He says that the Government have forgotten safeguards. I assure him that we have not forgotten safeguards, although he may well feel from the way in which the Bill reads that that is the case. However, we are very anxious about it. I am sure that the noble Viscount realises that he is bringing in not a new régime but an additional régime, an alternative régime, and it really would be pretty disastrous if such
1120
a régime were to turn out to have some of the worst consequences which have been expressed. I entirely accept that. In turn, I hope that the noble Viscount will accept from me that the Government have been concerned and have consulted carefully about this situation.
While I accept that we may not have the wording as adequate as the noble Lord would like, I ask him to take it from me that we certainly have not forgotten safeguards. Whether or not they are sufficient for him is something that he will have to decide; but certainly we have not forgotten them. I feel that the fears which he has expressed really should not be there. We have confidence that what we are proposing, for the reasons that I am giving now and for all the others about which we have been talking, should assuage his fears on this matter.
Viscount Hanworth: If I have understood the noble Lord aright, he is really saying that what I want here is already in the Bill in some other way and the safeguards provided in the Bill are quite as adequate as the ones I am moving. Am I correct?
Lord Bellwin: I would not deem it right to go so far as that because I am not sure of the exact extent of the safeguards that the noble Lord wishes. But, if he likes, what I will gladly undertake to do is to go into much more detail with chapter and verse between now and the next stage—and in fact I can do it now—in order to give him an opportunity to see if there is a degree of safeguard which would satisfy him.
Viscount Hanworth: I thank the Minister very much. I am only referring at this stage to Amendment No. 58 but I did make the broader point that safeguards in the Bill were in my view inadequate. We shall certainly come on to this point when I deal with my other amendments. I should be most grateful if the Minister could satisfy himself that, broadly speaking, what I am trying to achieve in this amendment is already in the Bill, or perhaps would be put in the Bill if the Minister was not satisfied that he had safeguards of this type. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power of certain public bodies to relax requirements of building regulations for their own works]:
8.46 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 39, line 1, after ("may") insert ("after consulting the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: As I understand it—and I think as my noble friend does as well—there is at present in the Bill no body of expertise outside the Department of the Environment and the local authorities for the relaxation of building regulations. It therefore would be wise to require a consultation to be carried out before any public body issued "a direction" as in lines 1 and 2 on page 39 of the Bill. New building materials and methods become available from time to time and the Secretary of State may, if he feels it right, consult the Building

1121
Regulations Advisory Committee or other expert opinion before he himself advises the public body. I therefore feel that this might be a wise precaution to take. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Clause 39 will allow certain bodies to relax some of the requirements of building regulations—that is, those that are prescribed, following consultation—for their own works, where they consider that that particular requirement would be unreasonable in the circumstances. These bodies will be identical to the ones we have just discussed under Clause 38; namely, local authorities, county councils and prescribed public bodies, which act under an enactment for public purposes and not for their own profit.
The justification for exempting them from the procedures is that they can be trusted, as my noble friend has already said, to comply with the substantive building regulations, and do not need to be subject to building control authorities enforcement operations. Indeed, many of them are building control authorities. On the same basis therefore it seems reasonable to allow the same bodies, subject to the safeguards I shall list in a moment, to relax particular requirements of the building regulations where they are unduly onerous.
What I am about to say I hope will be a partial answer at least to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. The safeguards are as follows. First, bodies will be able to relax the requirements only of those regulations which are prescribed. There will be consultation before that can be done. I do not want to prejudice those consultations but if, for example, it were generally felt that the power to relax some of the regulations should be reserved, then this could be done.
Secondly, they will be obliged to advertise any proposal they have to relax the requirements, exactly as building control authorities have to now when they are considering relaxing regulations at the request of an applicant. These requirements and procedures are set out in Section 8 of the Public Health Act 1961, and subsection (2) of Clause 38 of this Bill applies them to the cases of the public bodies we are considering. They will give full opportunities for representations to be made.
Thirdly, public bodies who are contemplating relaxing regulations which might affect fire safety would have to consult the fire authority exactly as local authorities do now under Section 15(1) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
The effect of Amendment No. 59 would be to require them in all cases to consult the Secretary of State. We see no justification for that, and it would be counter to the intention of Clause 39 which is to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy by enabling responsible bodies to take their own decisions as regards relaxation of those regulations—and only those—which are prescribed for the purposes of Clause 39.
As regards regulations which are not prescribed for the purposes of Clause 39, and where the power to relax is reserved to the local authority or Secretary of State, an exempt body will have to go through the normal procedures of applying for a relaxation.
1122
I hope that, in view of those comments, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: That is rather a mouthful, and rather a complicated mouthful. I think I would prefer to read it in the Official Report tomorrow before making any comment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No 60:
Page 39, leave out lines 6 to 8.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment also relates to relaxation requirements. Under Section 6 of the Public Health Act 1961, the Secretary of State is enabled to relax a requirement imposed by building regulations in a particular case where that requirement would, in the circumstances of that case, be unreasonable and where specific application is made for that relaxation.
Clause 39 of the Bill will carry Section 6 of the 1961 Act even further, because it will enable certain bodies to dispense with any requirement of the building regulations at all in any case where they regard the requirement as unreasonable in relation to a particular building work which they are carrying out. The bodies upon whom this power of dispensation is to be conferred are local authorities with, of course, the exception of parish councils, statutory undertakers and any other body which is prescribed as an exempt body for the purposes of Clause 38 of the Bill.
Together with local government associations and NALGO, we are very concerned that the conferring of such a power of dispensation upon a wide range of bodies could, in effect, amount to a jerry-builders' charter. We feel that this must be avoided at all costs. Therefore we believe that the power of dispensation should be conferred only upon local authorities and statutory undertakers, and the object of the amendment is to restrict the effect of the clause by deleting any reference to the wider range of exempt bodies.
This is an amendment to which we attach great importance because of the potential it carries for the encouragement of jerry-building and the absence of control. We believe that certainly today, when standards are unfortunately not always as high as they should be in many instances this would be an invitation to cut corners very severely and to a much lower standard of building and maintenance than we ought to accept. I beg to move the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: This amendment covers precisely the point that I was making in very general terms. One is really very worried that adequate safeguards are not being preserved in this Bill. As I shall argue a little later, one is not asking for more bureaucratic procedures; one is simply asking that, when something is delegated, somebody is there to overlook it if it proves to be necessary.
Lord Skelmersdale: Everything that I said on the earlier amendments, including the safeguards, applies to this amendment. Our intention is that the bodies empowered to relax under Clause 39 should be the same as those which would be exempt from the

1123
procedures under the previous clause. Where bodies are exempt from the procedures, they are trusted to comply with the building regulations; building control authorities' enforcement operations will not extend to them.
This is all designed to save bureaucracy and to remove the statutory obligation on local authorities and similar responsible bodies to push pieces of paper around between each other or even, in the case of district councils, within themselves. On the same basis, therefore, it seems reasonable to allow the same bodies, subject to the safeguards which I spelt out when we were discussing Amendment No. 59, to relax particular requirements of the building regulations where they are unduly onerous.
However, there is a separate safeguard in which I think the Committee will be interested and which is my personal defence against the accusation of speaking for a "jerry-builders' charter", which I think were the words used by the noble Baroness. It is that the exempt bodies would be notified to Parliament by order by negative resolution. So if at any time the Government of the day felt it necessary to change them, Parliament would be able to express its view on the changes that the then Government were proposing. I think that this is a very important extra safeguard and I hope that the Committee will agree it.
Viscount Hanworth: I just want to make one point here. It is very drastic to make an order to remove a body which has probably been doing some quite good work just because something has gone wrong or is going wrong. One wants to improve matters rather than take such a drastic step. Do let us be sensible. Who on earth will take away the charter from as responsible a body as the British Standards Institution? Much the same applies to other public bodies. Unless something has gone very seriously wrong, one could not do it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Surely that is the point, If they were responsible, there would be no need to lay an order before Parliament in order to take these particular self-certification powers away from them.
Baroness Denington: The Minister pleads that part of the reason for this action is to do away with too much bureaucracy. None of us supports a lot of bureaucratic nonsense, but nevertheless we are so worried that the safeguards in this Bill are being whittled away and that what is left is minimal, that we would sooner preserve a little reasonable bureaucracy in the interests of safety. That is really where we stand. I do not know whether the Government realise—surely they do now, having gone this far with the Bill—that we and a great many professional people outside are exceedingly worried about this Bill, and the further we go through the Bill the more worried about it we become.
The Government do not seem to be able to respond one single jot to our quite proper public concern about the dispensations being given in this Bill. I ask the Minister to convey to his friends that not only we on these Benches but a whole body of professional opinion outside is profoundly concerned. We are
1124
proud of our record in this nation that we do not open our newspapers and find buildings falling down. Our worry is that in time to come we may not be so happy about the situation.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and also of my noble friend. I thought that they both put the case extremely well and stressed the importance and gravity of what is being done and how the Bill would look without this amendment. It is true that local authorities have been permitting or refusing relaxation for some time and they will continue to do so in their own right and for approved inspectors after the Bill becomes law, if in fact it does.
However, it is considered essential that in any locality there should be consistency in the application of relaxation or dispensation procedures. But, as at present drafted, we have this range of public bodies which would have identical powers covering their own operational properties and other property in their ownership. There is no justification for this extension of power. The building regulations are about health and safety, and in this area the status quo should be maintained. We do not even know the extent of the list, although one hopes the Government will have in mind some limitation on the original proposals.
Apparently the Government seem to believe that the type of body in question is publicly accountable and, by employing professional advisers or employees, it will not seek to cut corners. There is nothing to stop such bodies using the established local authority route, if they so desire. But, if these arguments are sound, there is no need for the provision that they have made. This is so important that, in order to safeguard, as it were, and in order to control relaxation of the control powers, I shall have to press it to a Division if the Minister cannot give us any other hope.
9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 40.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Denington, B.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Boardman, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Donegall, M.

Caithness, E.

Eccles, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Cathcart, E.

Elton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Coleraine, L.

Glanusk, L.

1125

Glenarthur, L.

Romney, E.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Marley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Portland, D.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Approval of documents for purposes of building regulations]:
9.8 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 39, line 26, after ("State") insert ("after consulting the Building Regulations Advisory Committee").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 61 I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 66 with the approval of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, 67, 68, 71, 72 and 75. This group of amendments are together and all concern basically one thing. In my view, it is vital for the success of new functional regulations that the approved documents should carry the greatest possible authority and have the widest possible acceptance within the building industry and the professions connected therewith. There is a serious concern, I believe, within the professions generally about the possible contents and method of approval of future approval documents.
To give them added strength, all approved documents should be approved by the Secretary of State even when they are prepared by outside bodies. The outside bodies that advise the Secretary of State in this respect should be the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, (a) because they know about this business and (b) because this ties this Bill in with Section 9 of the Public Health Act 1961. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Despite the admirable way in which my noble friend has moved this enormous series of amendments, I am afraid that it is going to take a little time to explain the answer. At present the building regulations not only say what must be done. In many cases they also say how it should be done. The regulations contain a table six pages long listing the relevant British Standards. This is very useful for the builder but the inclusion of technical matter in such detail within the statutory instrument itself produces a very unwieldy document and it means that revisions or updatings of the standards concerned cannot be brought into the regulations without a further amending statutory instrument. Yet these standards have been developed in the British Standards Institution by committees of experts drawn from all relevant interests, the professions, manufacturers and contractors, building owners and users, local authorities and Government departments.
The draft will have been subjected to a process of open public consultation, and the final standard in virtually every case represents the agreed consensus of all concerned. It seems wasteful and unnecessarily
1126
time-consuming for my right honourable friend to have to start again to examine and evaluate that standard and then to subject it to a further round of public consultation before making a statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament. In nearly 20 years' experience of this process it is hard to recall a single instance where reference in the regulations to such standards has been challenged. The Bill, therefore, seeks to cut through this expensive duplication of procedures, and to allow the Secretary of State to approve such documents as giving practical guidance to compliance with the building regulations.
Noble Lords would surely accept that it is sensible to take these technical details out of the regulations; and nothing that my noble friend has said so far has led me to suppose otherwise. The fear seems to be that bodies which were designated by the Secretary of State might allow commercial or private interests to distort their judgment. The Government are the first to agree that this must not happen. If we thought that there was a serious likelihood that it would happen we would not be bringing forward this clause.
How do we see this provision operating? First, the only candidates we have in mind at present for designation under this clause are the British Standards Institution and the British Board of Agrément. Both are established authoritative bodies whose independence is beyond question. The BSI operate under Charter and the Council of the Board of Agrément is appointed by the Secretary of State. In the BSI the standards committees in this field have representation not only from private industry but also from Government departments. As for the Board of Agrément, officials representing my right honourable friend's department attend the council's meetings as assessors. There is no danger that I can see of either of these organisations being captured by sectional private interests.
Designation is made by statutory instrument laid before Parliament, so your Lordships would have an opportunity of considering in detail any proposition that might be made. Designation would not be the end of the matter. The Secretary of State would retain the right to withdraw designation from any body which does not discharge its functions properly. This is a very powerful sanction which we should ensure continuing here for the public interest. The Government's intentions here are to ensure that technical information relevant to the building regulations is assessed and disseminated as quickly and efficiently as possible. We want to reduce unnecessary, repetitive, bureaucratic procedures to a minimum.
We have well-established centres of independent expertise in the BSI and the BBA. The public interest is well protected there by the active participation of my right honourable friend's department. It seems sensible to us to let those two bodies get on with the job. I believe that the system we are proposing is necessary if we are to have a flexible, responsive system of guidance to support the building regulations.
Some approved documents will have to be produced from within my department. I am sure that my right honourable friend will want to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on these and it will be part of his normal relationship with that committee to discuss with them draft codes of practice in the

1127
course of their production. A formal obligation to consult the committee in every case—which is the purpose of some of the amendments—would be unduly rigid and restrictive and would mean that, no matter how thorough the early stages of consultation had been, further consultation would have to be gone through. That seems superfluous.
I can assure my noble friend that, although we do not want re-consultation to be automatic, my right honourable friend will always consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee when necessary. He sets a very high value on the advice and assistance that he receives from that excellent committee. With this long and, I hope, sufficiently detailed explanation, perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: I am not quite certain what to do because a great deal of what the Minister has said covers points that I was going to make in my own speech. I think, therefore, that the sensible thing would be for me to deal with one or two points which the noble Lord particularly mentioned. This will shorten my later speech.
I have a great admiration for the British Standards Institution and their work. Nevertheless, having sat on a very large number of their committees over a long, long period, I would certainly think it invidious to give them the powers proposed without the Minister having, at least, a last say if he should wish to have it. Nor do I believe that the BSI would wish to accept this authority completely.
A committee decision in BSI is usually based on obtaining 90 per cent. agreement—sometimes to the detriment of the result. To decide how to balance comments received on a draft can be very difficult for committees with a requirement to obtain such a degree of unanimity. Even more difficult, I think, and even more invidious for the senior staff of BSI, would it be to upset a committee's or senior committee's decision. Sometimes—or, as the cynics would say, more often than not—the net result could be classified as the lowest common denominator.
I cannot believe that there is any objection to the Government putting their dhobi mark on what they believe, having been represented on the BSI committee, to be a reasonable standard; going out for further limited consultation only if it seems desirable; or putting the document back to the committee for reasons stated. If this approach conflicts with precedent, then make provision for doing it in the Bill. Certainly, I would have thought that the Bill's proposals were a complete breach with all tradition and the principles of Government and parliamentary control. The Minister has also said that, if necessary, and if the results were not satisfactory, BSI could be removed from being a certifying body. I ask your Lordships! For a Government solemnly to make that provision against one of the most reputable institutions in the land there would have to be some matter gone so wrong as hardly to be believable. That is just idle talk.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not quite sure whether I have misled the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in what I said or whether, perhaps, he has slightly
1128
misunderstood the basic foundation of Clause 40. The whole point about Clause 40 is that it will enable the Secretary of State to approve documents which, in his opinion—and there is the safeguard; because the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament all the time—provide practical guidance on compliance with the building regulations. This will make it possible for the complicated technical supporting material in the present statutory instrument, which has to be drafted in legal terms, to be set out in technically-written practical documents outside the regulations. I did not at any point say that the BSI could be removed as a body. When I was talking about the removal of "bodies", I was talking about bodies, for example, such as the statutory undertakers which were referring to in, I think, Clause 37, if I remember correctly.
Viscount Hanworth: Perhaps the Bill is not clear, but I and a number of other people who have read it understand that the Government can delegate powers of approval of these "deemed to satisfy" documents probably to the BSI and the Agrément Board. If that is so, and the Government retain absolutely no right of approving those documents, then, when they are passed by the British Standards Institution or whatever body has been nominated they will have legal status. If the Minister says that is not so, that is a very different matter; but I can hardly believe it, because the Bill has been read as meaning that by many people who are more competent to judge than I am.
The Earl of Caithness: Similar representations have been made to me as they have to the noble Viscount. Certain professions are very concerned that the Secretary of State is delegating his powers, and the advice of the professional bodies which is sought at the moment by the Secretary of State will not be sought by the body which takes over the Secretary of State's duties. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend can reassure me that the Secretary of State at the end of the day has overall control. If he does not, I think it is important that we should discuss this very thoroughly before a later stage of these proceedings.
Lord Skelmersdale: If I am wrong of course I shall write and inform Members of the Committee who have spoken on this particular point; but so far as I can see at the moment I am probably correct. However, if I am not, as I say, I will inform those of your Lordships who are concerned.
Baroness Birk: Even if the Minister is correct, having listened carefully to what has been said and having read the clause, it seems there is enough doubt in it either for the Minister to be able to go back or explain exactly what it does mean, which does not seem to be entirely clear. If there is no reason for the anxieties which have been expressed—and which I really think are well placed at the moment so far as the present wording is concerned—then it would seem that that part of the clause certainly needs redrafting. One of the interesting things which has arisen from this discussion—if we ignore for a moment its substantive point—is that it is quite unclear. If something can give rise to so much misunderstanding, certainly among the people who have spoken who are, though few, all extremely knowledgeable in this field, then there is something wrong with the way it is set down.
Viscount Hanworth: I am rather disappointed, because I took the precaution of writing out my speech and sending a copy to the Minister beforehand. I would have hoped at least, since the whole of my speech was concerned with this particular point, that we could have had it clarified tonight; but perhaps it may come up with my amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise to the noble Viscount. I have not seen the letter to which he referred. I do not know when he wrote it or when he sent it but if there has been a slip up in my department I can only apologise most sincerely. I assure him that that is the position.
Viscount Hanworth: It was just a matter of information. It was sent personally to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and it contained everything that I propose to say tonight on the amendments which I shall move in a minute.
Lord Swinfen: I must admit that, having listened to the debate on this amendment, I am not very happy with the outcome. I should therefore like to reserve my position and possibly come back at a later stage. So, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 have been marshalled in the wrong order. Therefore, I will now call Amendment No. 64.
9.26 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 39, line 26, leave out from ("State") to second ("the ") in line 33, and insert ("may approve and issue any document (whether or not prepared by him), if in his opinion").
The noble Viscount said: I think that it will be convenient to the Committee if in moving this amendment I also speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 66, 70, 73 and 77. I have already raised some of the points which I was going to make on these amendments, so I shall be fairly brief. The intention of the amendments is to negative the provision in the Bill which, apparently, allows a Secretary of State to delegate his power of approving documents giving practical guidance on the requirements of the building regulations to private bodies. In another place, the Minister argued that the delegation of his powers would speed up approval and avoid two separate processes of consultation. Worthy as this aim may be, it is just not acceptable as it stands.
An approved document will have only slightly less status than a full mandatory regulation. It will, in effect, establish the degree of safety and the quality of building work. For example, the building regulations may state only that a building must have adequate foundations to guard against damage from specified causes, but what this means in practice will be spelled out in the approved document. Not only this, but Clause 41 of the Bill provides for the use of such documents in legal proceedings.
A private body giving approval will not be answerable in any way to Parliament, and this offends the democratic principle that special interests should not define criteria of public concern. Another objection is that a private approval body can even approve a document produced and issued by another body, when, quite possibly, consultation with interested parties is lacking. Quite amazingly, I believe that there is no procedure for obliging an approval body to withdraw an unsatisfactory document—and that, of course, is the nub of the question.
If the Minister does not agree these amendments, which seems likely—I hope that he will give really serious thought to the points which I have made and that he will also agree that there is no need for double consultation. All that is wanted is for the Minister to have a reserve power, so that he is able not to approve a document if he is not satisfied with it. For example, if he feels that further consultation is necessary, he can indicate what the further consultation should be; or, if in any other way he is not satisfied with the document, he can put it back for further consideration by the committee. I simply cannot believe that, if the Government do not have those powers, they can reasonably argue that they should not have them. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that the noble Viscount, although trying to be helpful, and with the best will in the world, has confused me totally and completely. I have checked with my officials and they have no knowledge even of receiving such a letter. I hope that my reply will be a partial answer, but obviously it will not be anything like as considered as it would have been had we been in different circumstances.
Amendments 65, 70 and 76 comprise a proposal which purports to give my right honourable friend an alternative to preparing approved documents himself. It would appear to enable him to designate bodies to prepare documents, under his direction, which he might subsequently approve. My right honourable friend already has powers to commission outside bodies as consultants to prepare papers for him. He has indeed already followed this course in respect of early drafts of some of the documents which may ultimately be approved in connection with the new regulations. He may well repeat this action in future. Detailed requirements for consultation and other aspects of the preparation of the drafts can be imposed in the usual way through a contract and my right honourable friend will be ultimately responsible for the text which he approves. He needs no new powers to do this.
But designation would mean that, having decided to place such a commission, my right honourable friend would have to lay an order in Parliament, subject to negative resolution procedures, naming the drafting body. I cannot believe that noble Lords wish the power to endorse a body selected by normal contractual procedures to prepare a draft which my right honourable friend will then take over as his own.
The effect of Amendment No. 77 would be largely to cancel out the effect of Clause 44(1). At present, the Secretary of State is required under Section 9(3) of the Public Health Act 1961, before making building

1131
regulations, to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and other interested parties. These currently number over 300, and consultation is obligatory whether the building regulations concerned deal with substantive matters or whether they are merely procedural.
At present, the requirement imposed under subsection (3) of Section 9 of the 1961 Act is as follows:
"Before making any building regulations, the Minister shall consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and such other bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned".
Thus, Clause 44(1) would restrict the statutory obligation for full consultation to the substantive matters of the regulations—that is, those which affect the way buildings are actually constructed. It would not mean that we would stop consulting on all the other, procedural matters—we would not; we would continue to consult generally on new matters but not on minor changes where we might however consult a more restricted group of bodies.
Let me explain just what this consultation involves at the moment. We have a standard list of bodies to consult on changes to the building regulations. It is an open list; any representative body which can claim a legitimate interest can ask to be put on it, even though their interest may in practice be very narrow and limited. As I have said, it is an enormous list of 300 bodies; but I was amazed to discover that it included two very unlikely bedfellows—namely, the Cake and Biscuit Alliance and the Vitreous Enamel Development Association. I hope that proves my point. All have recognisable interests in the building regulations, but not a central interest in every case. We are not asking, in Clause 44(1), for leave to stop consulting altogether; we want merely to be allowed to be selective in out consultations on procedural details.
Turning now to the particular point raised by Amendment No. 77, I think we would accept that, the first time we make regulations to bring Parts II and III of this Bill into effect, we should consult exhaustively; but if details like this need changing later, would it be sensible to canvass the changes with 300-plus organisations? Amendment No. 77 would require us to do that.
I can assure the Committee further that, wherever significant matters are under consideration—and of course some procedural matters can be vitally important—we shall consult fully. I think our record on consultation on these matters is very good. We have consulted repeatedly on matters we were not statutorily obliged to—our Command Paper, our consultation on certification of last July, our massive consultation on the form and content of our regulations last May and again this March; I think that speaks for itself. I hope I have said enough to make the noble Viscount aware of the Government's thinking on this matter, even if I have not directly answered some of the points which he made in his interesting speech, which I will study and consider very carefully over the weekend.
Viscount Hanworth: I thank the Minister for taking so much trouble. As he realised, he has not really
1132
answered satisfactorily the fundamental point. There are at the moment many standards used in legislation, but of course they are always, and always have been, approved by the Ministry as suitable for that legislation. It refers to the standard at a certain time, and certainly in a "deemed to satisfy" document amendment of the standard is relatively easy.
All we are asking is that the Minister does not delegate wholly his authority for deciding that a standard is suitable. He will have had a representative on the committee and it may well be that that representative was not wholly satisfied; he will probably be fairly junior, and he may not have been able fully to influence the committee. I repeat the point that the Minister should reserve to himself the right not to agree a standard that has been produced for the regulations. That means that he has finally to put his dhobi mark on it before it becomes an official document.
I hope the Minister will consider these points. Unfortunately I am going on holiday on 6th May. I was going to ask the Minister to write to me. But if there is any chance of meeting the Minister before then and having a brief talk to sort this out, I would be more than grateful. I would be prepared to meet at any time suitable to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 40, line 5, leave out from ("be") to ("by") in line 8 and insert ("the body which gave the approval may—
(a) from time to time approve and issue a revision of the whole or any part of an approved document issued").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I would speak also to Amendment No. 74. Both these amendments seek to clarify the Bill. They both concern the mechanism for approving documents to give practical guidance on technical matters covered by the building regulations. Such documents might, for example, be British Standards dealing with the design of gutters and drainpipes, or with the materials to be used in chimneys connected to central heating boilers.
Subsection (1) of Clause 40 would allow the Secretary of State either to approve these technical documents himself or to designate other bodies to approve them. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained in another place that the bodies the Government had in mind for this task were, as I have said, the British Standards Institution and the British Board of Agrément. The right to approve documents should logically bring with it the right to cancel or modify the approvals in the light of subsequent developments in technical knowledge. Subsection (5) grants the power to withdraw approval, and subsection (4), the subject of the first of these two amendments, seeks to give designated bodies the power to revise their approved documents.
The subsection as drafted, however, does not explicitly restrict the power to revise documents to those

1133
issued by the approving body in question. It would clearly be wrong for the BSI to attempt to revise an Agrément Certificate as an approved document, or the other way round, or for the Board of Agrément to try to alter a document issued and approved by the Secretary of State himself. We know, of course, that the BSI and the BBA would not want to do any such thing, but this amendment makes it quite clear that they must mind their own businesses, and that their power to revise documents is limited to those they have issued themselves in the first place. I trust that your Lordships will accept that as reasonable.
The second of the two amendments seeks to clarify the position which could arise if—as is most unlikely—the Secretary of State had had to exercise his powers to withdraw a designation from one of these document-approving bodies. It is obviously necessary that the Secretary of State should retain some control over bodies he designates for this purpose. He does not want a detailed, day-to-day control of the sort which means that his department needlessly duplicates the work of the BSI or the Board of Agrément, but the Bill would give him the powerful sanction of withdrawing their designation. If he were to use that sanction, the question would then arise of how to revise or cancel any of the documents which might previously have been approved by the body in question.
I feel that I have just contradicted something I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, earlier and I shall obviously have to consider the two halves of my statement. I shall do that.
The withdrawal of designation from a body would not affect the status of documents that it had previously approved. The new subsection we are proposing would make it clear that the function of revising or cancelling such documents would be taken over by the Secretary of State. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a practical step to be taking. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 40, line 28, at end insert—
("(6A) Where a body ceases to be a body designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section, subsections (4) and (5) above shall have effect as if any approval given by that body had been given by the Secretary of State.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Amendments of enactments relating to building regulations]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Section 64(4) of the 1936 Act and section 6 of the 1961 Act, as amended]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 68, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("if") in line 42.
The noble Lord said: With permission, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 77B and 77C, which are all technical amendments. Schedule 8 to the Bill contains an up-to-date version of Section 6 of the Public Health Act 1961 in the form it will be when the present Bill is enacted. This is included as a matter of convenience for those using Section 6.
In its new form, it will contain new subsections (2A) and (2B). These subsections are to be found in Clause 39. When that clause was amended in another place, the need to make consequential amendments to Schedule 8 was overlooked. These amendments merely make good that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 77B and 77C:
Page 69, line 1, leave out ("the public body concerned") and insert ("a public body")
Page 69, line 10, leave out ("(c) statutory undertakers;")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 49 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 71, column 3, leave out line 24.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes what I am sure the Committee will consider to be an undesirable side-effect of the decision to remove Clause 2 of the Bill. Schedule 9 repeals certain provisions of previous legislation. Line 24 on page 71 repeals Section 2(2)(a) of the 1980 Act. That section provides that the right to buy does not arise if the landlord is a housing association which is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960. This is clearly not the will of the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 82:
Page 71, column 3, leave out lines 25 and 26.
Page 71, column 3, leave out lines 28 to 30.
Page 71, line 36, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 2, in the provision renumbered as paragraph 15(1), paragraph (b) and the words "and paragraph 16 below".").

The noble Lord said: These are all consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Associated British Ports Bill
(formerly British Transport Docks Bill)
The Queen's Consent was signified and the Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.