Housing and Building Control Bill

HL Deb 05 April 1984 vol 450 cc801-17

3.24 p.m.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Housing and Building Control Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bellwin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 [Extension to certain cases where landlord does not own freehold]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 17, after ("of) insert ("not less than").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 1 is the first of a large number of minor and technical amendments tabled by the Government. I apologise to your Lordships for the number of amendments involved, but I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that for most of the provisions in the Bill this is the last opportunity we shall have to discuss them.

We have heard on numerous occasions during its time in your Lordships' House, about the drafting. We have tried to improve it—I hope with some success—and not without a little assistance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to whom I am very grateful. I hope that your Lordships would agree that we should continue those efforts, even at this late stage. Of necessity some of the tidying up can only sensibly be done when we have before us the more or less final version of the Bill.

The vast majority of the Government amendments before the House today have no policy implications whatever. They are designed to improve the drafting, or to correct printing errors or cross-references, or to ensure consistency throughout the Bill and with the 1980 Act—for example, in providing transitional arrangements where the existing 1980 Act rules are being changed. With your Lordships' permission, therefore. I should like to move Amendment No. 1 and then to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc and also deal with various other amendments. If any explanation should be required of any one of those amendments, then as we reach them I shall be glad to endeavour to provide more details. My Lords, in addition to Amendment No. 1, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 19, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66. Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 20, after ("Act") insert ("(except paragraph 10)"). Amendment No. 3: Page 5, line 36, after ("section") insert ("and section 15 of that Act (children succeeding parents)"). Amendment No. 4: Page 6, line 5, leave out ("For subsection (4)") and insert ("In subsection (2)"). Amendment No. 5: Page 6, line 6, leave out first ("the"). Amendment No. 6: Page 6, line 6, after ("dwelling-house)") insert ("after the words "by virtue of there shall be inserted the words "sub-section (4) below or". (2A) For subsection (4) of that section"). Amendment No. 8: Page 11, line 36, after ("grant") insert ("or, in the case of a grant for a term of less than twenty-one years, during that term"). Amendment No. 11: Page 12, line 41, leave out from ("him") to end of line 43. Amendment No. 14: Page 20, line 38, after ("available") insert ("annual"). Amendment No. 19: Page 31, line 22, leave out second ("of) and insert ("to"). Amendment No. 22: Page 37, line 7, after (" 104B") insert ("(2)"). Amendment No. 27: Page 38, line 25, leave out ("the"). Amendment No. 28: Page 54, line 14, leave out ("Buildings") and insert ("Building"). Amendment No. 29: Page 69, line 8, leave out ("(in this paragraph referred to as "the former tenant")"). Amendment No. 30: Page 69, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (4). Amendment No. 37: Page 78, line 5, leave out ("the value at the time of the disposal"). Amendment No. 38: Page 78, line 8, after first ("dwelling-house") insert ("the value at the time of the disposal"). Amendment No. 39: Page 78, line 10, after ("case") insert ("the value at the time of the disposal"). Amendment No. 45: Page 78, line 29, leave out ("or") and insert ("shall be £10 per annum; and"). Amendment No. 49: Page 85, line 24, after first ("compulsory") insert ("purchase"). Amendment No. 50: Page 86, line 25, leave out second ("the") and insert ("that"). Amendment No. 51: Page 94, line 35, at end insert—

("Interpretation In this Schedule expressions used in Part I of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part."). Amendment No. 52: Page 96, line 5, at end insert— ("5A. Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants) shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act."). Amendment No. 53: Page 96, line 6, at beginning insert ("(1)"). Amendment No. 54: Page 96, line 8, at end insert— ("(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act."). Amendment No. 56: Page 96, line 12, at end insert— ("(1A) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "section 7(5)" there shall be substituted the words "section 7(1)" and for the words "section 7(2) or (4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 7(1A), (2) or (4)."."). Amendment No. 57: Page 96, line 34, leave out ("amendment made by subparagraph (2) above") and insert ("amendments made by this paragraph"). Amendment No. 60: Page 97, line 7, leave out paragraph 11. Amendment No. 61: Page 99, line 33, at end insert— ("18A.— (1) In subsection (2) of section 24 of that Act (vesting orders) for the words "the landlord and the tenant and their successors in title" there shall be substituted the words "both the landlord and its successors in title and the tenant and his successors in title (including any person deriving title under him or them)". (2) That section shall have effect as if any reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act."). Amendment No. 62: Page 99, leave out line 35. Amendment No. 63: Page 101, line 22, leave out ("(2A)"). Amendment No. 64: Page 103, line 23, after ("words") insert (" "Section 7(3) to (6)"."). Amendment No. 65: Page 104, line 1, leave out ("subsection (5) of section 2") and insert ("section 2(5)"). Amendment No. 66: Page 104, line 3, leave out ("repeal of subsections (5) to (11) of section 7 of that Act has") and insert ("repeals of section 7(5) to (11) and 15 of that Act have").

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I shall then put the Question on Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.28 p.m.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment Nos. 2 to 6: [Printed above. ]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 5 [Repayment of discount on early disposal]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 7: Page 6, line 46, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, highlighted a possible loophole in the provisions governing repayment of discount which I undertook to consider further. I hope that this amendment and Amendments Nos. 36 and 48 will meet with your Lordships' approval: Amendment No. 36: Page 76, line 38, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised"). Amendment No. 48: Page 85, line 9, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised").

Clause 5 of the Bill amends Section 8 of the 1980 Act, which relates to the repayment of discount on early disposal of the dwelling-house. Certain categories of disposal are exempt under the 1980 Act and one purpose of Clause 5 is to add to the list of exempted categories of disposal.

Clause 5 retains the 1980 Act criterion that a disposal is denned as:

1. "(a) a further conveyance of the freehold or an assignment of the lease; or
2. (b) the grant of a lease or sub-lease for a term of more than twenty-one years otherwise than at a rack rent".

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out, it would be possible for a tenant who has bought his home under the right to buy to get round the discount clawback provisions by granting a lease for less than 21 years with an option to renew, which would take the total period above 21 years.

The object of these amendments is to stop that loophole which they do, in effect, by providing that for the purpose of asserting whether a lease is for more than 21 years, it shall be assumed that any option to extend or renew the lease is exercised, and that any option to terminate the lease is not exercised. Anyone granting a lease for less than 21 years with an option to extend or renew will therefore be caught by the discount clawback provisions.

The amendment to Clause 5 deals with disposals in outright right-to-buy cases; that to Schedule 3 with disposals in shared ownership cases: and the amendment to Schedule 6 in voluntary sales. I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for highlighting this loophole and I hope that he, together with your Lordships, will approve of the action that we have taken. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the noble Lord the Minister. He referred very flatteringly to me; but, in fact, this amendment is far better than my shot at it. In particu-lar, the last phrase closes a minor loophole which I had not spotted. I simply desire to say that, in addition, I have written to the noble Lord—he will not yet have received the letter because I only received his letter in the country yesterday—about further methods which might be used of evading these controls both in subsection (3) and subsection (3A). I do not want to advertise them, but perhaps the noble Lord would keep an eye open for them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Dwelling-houses suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age]:

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 8: [Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 9: Page 12, line 14, leave out ("of the tenant (or his successor in title)") and insert ("to be reconveyed or surrendered").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have grouped these amendments as they are all concerned with the valuation assumptions to be made in the Bill. They remove an ambiguity in the expression "tenant's interest" used in the different valuation provisions in the Bill. 1 shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13. Amendment No. 10: Page 12, line 18, leave out ("tenant (or his successor)") and insert ("vendor"). Amendment No. 12: Clause 9, page 13, line 25, leave out ("of the tenant (or his successor in title)") and insert ("to be reconveyed or surrendered"). Amendment No. 13: Page 13, line 28, leave out ("tenant (or his successor)") and insert ("vendor").

These amendments deal with the amount to be paid by the landlord when he exercises his right of pre-emption under Section 18A or Section 19 of the Housing Act 1980. Under the pre-emption covenant the tenant is obliged to reconvey the freehold of the dwelling-house or surrender his lease. The amendments make it clear that what is to be valued is the interest to be reconveyed to the landlord or surrendered.

The second group of amendments are Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. Amendment No. 31: Schedule 3, Page 74, line 44, after ("any") insert ("morgages of that interest and any"). Amendment No. 32: Page 74, line 45, leave out ("tenant and disregarding") and insert ("vendor and disregarding—

1. (a) any interest in or rights over the dwelling-house created by the tenant;
2. (b) ").

Amendment No. 33: Page 75, line 1, after ("and") insert ("(c)"). Amendment No. 34: Page 75, line 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)"). Amendment No. 35: Page 75, line 5, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(ii)"). Amendment No. 40: Page 78, line 17, after ("any") insert ("mortgages of that interest and any"). Amendment No. 41: Page 78, line 18, leave out ("tenant and disregarding") and insert ("vendor and disregarding—

1. (a) any interests in or rights over the dwelling-house created by the tenant;
2. (b) ").

Amendment No. 42: Page 78, line 20, after ("and") insert ("(c)"). Amendment No. 43: Page 78, line 22, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)"). Amendment No. 44: Page 78, line 24, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").

These amendments deal with the calculation of the amount to be paid by the tenant under a shared ownership lease when he acquires additional shares under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bill or accounts for outstanding shares under paragraph 7. The amendments ensure that the amount payable is not affected by the tenant's mortgage or by any interest in or rights over the dwelling-house which he has created. Clearly, it would be wrong if the tenant was able to depress the value of the property which is used as the basis of calculating that amount by mortgaging it or granting a sub-lease. The amendments make it clear that these transactions are to be disregarded in valuing the property.

The final amendments are Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Amendment No. 46: Schedule 5, page 84, line 14, leave out ("of the mortgagor in the dwelling-house") and insert ("vested in the authority"). Amendment No. 47: Page 84, line 16, leave out from ("that") to end of line 20 and insert ("any prior incumbrances to which the vesting is not made subject would be discharged by the vendor").

These amendments deal with the amount to be set aside by an authority under paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill to meet mortgages and other charges on the dwelling-house when the tenant defaults on his mortgage and the authority, instead of exercising its powers of sale under the mortgage, vests the property in itself under Clause 20. The amendments ensure that the interest to be acquired by the authority under Schedule 5 is valued, but also takes account of the liability of the authority under paragraph 3(3)(a) of Schedule 5 to discharge prior incumbrances which are not overreached when the property vests in the authority. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 10: [Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 14.

[Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 15: After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:

("Further advances in the case of certain voluntary disposals.

. Where—

1. (a) a lease of a dwelling-house granted otherwise than in pursuance of this Part of this Act contains a provision to the like effect as that required by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act; and
2. (b) a body specified in section 19(3) above has, in the exercise of any of its powers, left outstanding or advanced any amount on the security of the dwelling-house,

that power shall include power to advance further amounts for the purpose of assisting the tenant to make payments in pursuance of that provision.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for bringing forward these amendments at such a late stage but they are needed to meet a point about the lending powers of public sector bodies. With this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 18: Amendment No. 18: Clause 24, transpose Clause 24 to after Clause 22.

This point concerns voluntary shared-ownership leases. By way of example, on the disposal of a legal estate or interest in a dwelling by, among other bodies, a registered housing association to an individual who intends to occupy it, the Housing Corporation can lend to assist the purchase. Similarly, other public sector bodies have a power on a disposal of a dwelling-house to leave the purchase price outstanding on mortgage. Where the disposal is under a shared-ownership lease, however, it needs to be made clear that this power includes the power to lend on the later requisition by the shared-ownership lessee of further shares. The new clause is intended to achieve this classification.

The clause covers the various bodies mentioned in Clause 19(3)—principally local authorities, new towns and the Housing Corporation—and ensures that loans on voluntary shared-ownership leases may be made on a similar footing to loans on shared-ownership leases granted under the right to shared-ownership contained in Part I of the Bill. In other words this is purely a tidying-up amendment which I hope will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Consent to certain voluntary disposals]:

3.38 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 16: Page 28. line 4, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 17.

Amendment No. 17: Page 28, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line.

Perhaps I may give a little of the background as to why these amendments have been brought forward, and certainly at such a late stage. In fact, they were table only last night. This clause raised a number of problems, and was discussed at the Report stage, when the point about subsection (4) was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised the question whether the whole of the clause was necessary. At that time on several occasions the Minister, as reported in Hansard, said that he would want to look at it again. At Col. 1444 on 22nd March he said: If we have it wrong in the drafting … in view of what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, and especially in view of what was said by the noble and learned Lord"—

which was in fact mainly concerned with subsection (4), which I seek to remove— I shall want to look at it again. It is merely a question of how we do it. We can withdraw the amendment now and reinstate it, or pass it now with my undertaking that I will look at it again—and your Lordships know that … and the rest is not so relevant.

Later on I suggested: If, as the Minister said, he is quite willing to accept either method of handling this problem, my noble friends and myself would be happier if, at this stage, he withdrew the amendment.

I ought to make it clear that this was not a clause that was in the Bill; it was a clause which would have amended the Bill.

Then, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said: I merely desire to say that whether the clause goes in with the undertaking which the Minister has given—and which, of course, we take unreservedly—that he will look at the points again, or whether the amendment is now withdrawn and reintroduced at a later stage, seems to me to be marginal.

However, in view of what the noble Earl said concerning his doubts as to the value of this clause at all. I should have thought that the balance was slightly on the side of withdrawal.

Later—and I have told the Minister in advance that I would be raising this point—I had a word with the Minister, who admitted that he was under the misapprehension that this had in fact been discussed with the local authority associations. He was then told that it had not been, and he said that he was sorry that this was so but he would in fact see that it was discussed, and the matter was left. Certainly my noble friends and I felt that the Government would come forward with an amendment, or at the very least that there would be a letter explaining why the Government wanted to leave it like this, in time for us to be able to consider it again either singly or together, or for me to have had a chance to have a word with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.

In the event nothing occurred. When I realised that the Government had not put down an amendment by late yesterday I phoned the office, and I then quickly put down the two amendments on the Marshalled List. The first amendment deals with the question of the subsection which allows the Secretary of State to make any condition that he sees fit. The subsection states: Any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose.

But there is a subsection that follows which appears to take in almost anything that one could imagine would be necessary in order to deal with this point. Subsection (5) says: Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above"— this is the subsection dealing with any such conditions that the Secretary of State sees fit to impose— any such consent may be given subject to conditions as to the price, premium or rent to be obtained on a disposal … including conditions as to the amount by which, on a disposal of such a dwelling-house by way of sale or by the grant or assignment of a lease at a premium, the price or premium is to be, or may be, discounted by the local authority.

I should have thought that that really took in everything that was needed. If anything else was needed, then I feel that the Government should have come forward with an amendment or addendum to that particular subsection and not have fallen back on subsection (4) which again gives to the Secretary of State enormously unlimited powers.

I am aware that this subsection is taken from the 1957 Act. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said at Report, at col. 1444: The Minister made good that there were precedents. Any lawyer loves a precedent, but a precedent is not always a good precedent.

What happens is that these precedents go through Bill after Bill and become statutory, and so what may either be something that has worn out its existence or was not good in the first place anyhow becomes embedded in every piece of legislation. Therefore, despite the long letter that I received, but which did not reach me until this morning, and which was a copy of a letter sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I would say that I do not think that even the reasons given there are satisfactory for the retention either of this clause or certainly of that subsection, taking into account subsection (5) which appears to cover the case quite sufficiently. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I only desire to add this point, which the noble Baroness did not deal with. I entirely agree with her about subsection (4), and I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for writing to me about it. I got the letter only today, but that is because I only came up today. I should like to add a word about subsection (7) which takes most drastic steps, going so far as to render void a conveyance to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any invalidity on the part of the local authority. That seems to me to be going altogether too far.

Certainly in his letter the noble Lord the Minister quoted again the precedents. I can only say that they were thoroughly bad precedents and merely showed that Parliament was not awake at the time. It is now awake to the mischief, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to reconsider this matter. The only opportunity I can see of reconsideration is by carrying this amendment; otherwise, as I understand it, the other place will not have an opportunity for reconsideration.

3.46 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, may I say first that I think apologies are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The information came to her late; it should have come sooner. We should make no bones about that at all, and I say so without any hesitation. I am sorry that it happened. I hope she will agree that it is something that does not too often happen in the legislation with which I deal.

If I may speak about the amendments themselves, I think I have to take a few moments to do this carefully, and indeed to quote from parts of the correspondence that has been mentioned, so as to explain to your Lordships quite why the Government take the line which they do on this matter. It is quite right, as the noble Baroness said, that I undertook to look at the clause again. I assure her that we did that. Usually that is taken to mean that we shall do something to alter it, but I think she would agree that it does not always mean that. I try to do so whenever I can. On this occasion I have not been able to.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say much of what was in the letter, which I feel I need to do. The problem which this clause seeks to address is that there is at present nothing to stop a landlord disposing of his interest in land held, other than under general housing powers, to a body other than the secure tenant. By doing so the landlord can effectively frustrate a tenant's application to exercise his right to buy. Clause 24 therefore proposes a new control over the disposal of such land where it is left on a secure tenancy or under a right-to-buy lease. It is, in essence, a simplified version of the existing provisions given in the disposal of Part V land.

The noble Baroness's amendments would delete subsection (4), which provides that any consent under the clause— may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose"— and make a consequent adjustment to subsection (5). The argument here is that the power is too widely drawn, as the noble Baroness said. Although I accept that the power is a wide one, as I said in my letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, we have felt after further consideration that it is right to leave the proposal as it stands, for the following reasons: First, the Secretary of State's concern in imposing conditions under this provision will be to protect the interests of the secure tenant or right-to-buy leaseholder with a tenancy of the land.

The most effective way of doing so will vary with individual circumstances. It may be appropriate to make it a condition of consent that any secure tenant should be provided by the disposing landlord with an alternative secure tenancy. Again it may be more appropriate to impose conditions on the disposal to preserve the tenant's right to purchase on terms equivalent to those available to him under Chapter I of the 1980 Act.

The types of disposal which can arise are themselves very wide-ranging, as we have learned from our experience with the consent provisions in the 1957 Act. For example, we have had to consider cases where the council wishes to dispose of its freehold interest in a block of flats to a co-operative of leaseholders of flats in the block. Although such a disposal may seem desirable in principle, arrangements to protect the interests of all parties concerned are by no means straightforward. We need to consider the implications of a disposal for the statutory rights of any secure tenants in the block under Chapters I and II of the 1980 Act. We need to consider the implications for the statutory provisions in Schedule 2 to the Act governing the terms of any right-to-buy leases which may have been granted in the block. We need to consider the implications for the discount repayment covenant which will have been imposed under Section 8 of the Act on any right-to-buy lease.

In all this we need to ensure that the statutory rights and liabilities of secure tenants and leaseholders are protected. But we need to be in a position to do so in a flexible way which makes sense in relation to the disposal proposed. That is why I think a wide-ranging power on the lines of subsection (4) is desirable. A power along these lines is well precedented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said—and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded us today—that that does not of itself mean the precedent is good. If one looks at its use, I suppose one would have to differ as to its effectiveness. The form of words in subsection (4) does follow that in Section 104A(2) of the Housing Act 1957 as inserted by Section 92 of the 1980 Act.

I think I ought to point out the fact that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, a purchaser who has entered into a transaction in good faith may subsequently find that transaction is void; and this is the effect of subsection (7), if a council makes an illegal disposal without the requisite consent. There are two points I should like to make in response to that point. First, what alternative provision would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggest? We could, of course provide that a purchaser obtained good title even if the disposal was made without consent. But where would that leave the tenant? He too has an interest in these matters. He would have effectively forfeited his right to buy as a result of an illegal action taken by his landlord. I wonder if it can be right that the transaction should nonetheless be upheld.

Secondly, we must remember that we are not here talking about disposals to individuals. They are not covered by the provision in subsection (7). In any illegal transaction rendered void by this provision, the purchaser is likely to be a company or corporation or other institution. I should be surprised to learn that bodies of that kind acquire property without having taken competent legal advice. It follows that I really would not expect there to be bona fide transactions which were rendered void by this provision.

I hope I have said enough adequately to explain the Government's position on this provision. As I have said, we did very carefully consider the points which were raised at Report stage. I am concerned in particular that what is proposed in this provision should be consistent with the controls over the disposal of Part V housing which are already embodied in legislation. In view of what was said, I will not make the point again about the precedent, but I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, may perhaps feel that the amendment should not be in the Bill.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, may I ask: am I not right in thinking that the only way in which further consideration can be given is by accepting this amendment?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is correct.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, in view of the reply, may I say right away that I of course accept the apology from the Minister. He is quite right, it does not very often happen and anybody can slip up; but it has made things difficult. One of the things it did, I am afraid, was not to give me sufficient time to be able to frame an amendment on subsection (7), which was the other very strong point made on Report, I thought, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and repeated today. It was really the point to get something in by way of an amendment in order to raise the whole matter. I do not think that the reply is entirely satisfactory. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that there should be an opportunity for the other place to have a look at this, and therefore I intend to press the amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?

3.55 p.m.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO.1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Denington, B.
Amherst, E.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Attlee, E.	Elwyn-Jones, L.
Aylestone, L.	Ennals, L.
Beswick, L.	Evans of Claughton, L.
Birk, B.	Ewart-Biggs, B.
Bishopston, L. [Teller.]	Ezra, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Fisher of Rednal, B.
Bottomley, L.	Gaitskell, B.
Briginshaw, L.	Gallacher, L.
Brockway, L.	Galpern, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Gladwyn, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Carmichael of	Grimond, L.
Kelvingrove, L.	Hale, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Hanworth, V.
Collison, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
David, B.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Hayter, L.
Delacourt-Smith of	Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Alteryn, B.	Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Hunt, L.	Phillips, B.
Irving of Dartford, L.	Plant, L.
Jacobson, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Jacques, L.	[Teller.]
Jeger, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Rea, L.
Kagan, L.	Rochester, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Lawrence, L.	Seear, B.
Leatherland, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Listowel, E.	Serota, B.
Llewelyn-Davies of	Shaughnessy, L.
Hastoe, B.	Simon, V.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Stallard, L.
Lockwood, B.	Stedman, B.
Longford, E.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Lovell-Davis, L.	Stone, L.
McGregor of Durris, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Tordoff, L.
McNair, L.	Underhill, L.
Mar, C.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Mayhew, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Milford, L.	Whaddon, L.
Mishcon, L.	White, B.
Monson, L.	Wigoder, L.
Morris of Grasmere, L.	Wilberforce, L.
Mulley, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Oram, L.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L.	Gisborough, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Glanusk, L.
Alport, L.	Glasgow, E.
Ampthill, L.	Glenkinglas, L.
Auckland, L.	Gormanston, V.
Avon, E.	Gridley, L.
Bathurst, E.	Grimthorpe, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Hailsham of Saint
Bellwin, L.	Marylebone, L.
Beloff, L.	Hawke, L.
Belstead, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.
Broxbourne, L.	Hood, V.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Jessel, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Killearn, L.
Chelwood, L.	Kimberley, L.
Chesham, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Cockfield, L.	Leathers, V.
Coleraine, L.	Lloyd, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Cottesloe, L.	Loudoun, C.
Craigavon, V.	Lovat, L.
Craigton, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Crathorne, L.	Lyell, L.
Cromartie, E.	McFadzean, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Daventry, V.	Mancroft, L.
Davidson, V.	Marley, L.
De Freyne, L.	Maude of Stratford-upon-
De La Warr, E.	Avon, L.
Denham, L.	Melville, V.
Drumalbyn, L.	Merrivale, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L.	Mersey, V.
Dundee, E.	Middleton, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Morris, L.
Eccles, V.	Mottistone, L.
Effingham, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Munster, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elton, L.	Northchurch, B.
Ely, M.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Forester, L.	Orkney, E.
Fortescue, E.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Pender, L.
Gainford, L.	Pennock, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Penrhyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.	Somers, L.
Plummer of St	Spens, L.
Marylebone, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Porritt, L.	Strathcona and Mount
Portland, D.	Royal, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Strathspey, L.
Reigate, L.	Suffield, L.
Renton, L.	Swinton, E. [Teller. ]
Romney, E.	Terrington, L.
St. Davids, V.	Trefgarne, L.
Saint Oswald, L.	Trenchard, V.
Sandford, L.	Trumpington, B.
Sandys, L.	Vaizey, L.
Savile, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Selkirk, E.	Vickers, B.
Sempill, Ly.	Vivian, L.
Skelmersdale, L.	Whitelaw, V.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

4.6 p.m.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19: [Printed earlier. ]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission of the House, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc as they are consequential. 1 beg to move.

Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 20: After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:

(" .—(1) Any secure tenant within the meaning of this Act shall be entitled to a report on the condition of their dwelling from an environmental health officer, a copy of which shall be submitted to the landlord within 28 days of the date of inspection.

(2) It shall be the duty of the local authority to carry out the works specified in that report necessary to remedy the defects, in such time as is reasonable being not more than 6 months from the date of consideration of the report.

(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the local authority may give an undertaking to carry out the works specified in the report in subsection (1) above as part of a programme of repairs and that undertaking shall include that the works of repair shall be completed by 12 months from the date of consideration of the report.

(4) Where a local authority fail to consider the report under subsection (1) above within 42 days of receipt of that report, or

1. (i) fail to carry out the works of repair specified as in subsection (2) above; or
2. (ii) fail to give an undertaking as in subsection (3) above, the tenant may make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction who may, if satisfied that the local authority has not complied with the requirements of this section, and that the works specified are reasonable, direct the local authority to carry out those works of repair to bring the dwelling up to a reasonable standard to safeguard the health and well being of the tenant.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment ties up with one that I moved at an earlier stage. The Minister wrote to me, but I did not find the answer very satisfactory, so I want to put some further points before him.

The new clause as drawn provides a course of action for secure tenants who might be unable or unwilling to exercise the right of repair. This may be because of lack of finance, inadequacy of cost limits of the scheme or the complexity of the administration. In fact, in the letter I was given a number of people and told that they could ask their neighbours. I should like to suggest that the neighbours might follow even less than the person doing the complaining. This is particularly important for the elderly because they may not wish to exercise the right of repair. It is clear that in law owners and tenants in the private sector are subject to the full range of the public health and housing legislation whereas tenants of the local authority sector generally are not. Tenants in the private sector can call in the local authority or environmental health officer to deal through statutory action with poor repair, dampness, lack of amenities and unfitness. The same is not possible for the secure tenant.

This is confirmed by the Housing Act legislation, at least in the recent case of Regina v. Cardiff' City Council, where it was determined that authorities cannot prosecute themselves under Part II of the Housing Act 1957. Clearly local authority tenants are not totally without redress. They can lay a complaint before the local magistrates' court under Section 99 of the Public Health Act 1976 if a house is in bad condition, is bad for their health and is a statutory nuisance. Secondly, there is a procedure under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1957 whereby, if a tenant can persuade a local Justice of the Peace that the house is unfit to live in, the JP makes written representation to a local authority and the local authority then must take action. However, there is a limit to such remedies and there still remains a wide gulf between private tenants and secure tenants.

I have grave reservations about tenants having to pay for their own repairs and I believe that insufficient use is made of the expertise of local authority environ-mental health officers in investigating defects in council buildings. While the best solution to council house repairs is planned maintenance—I think everybody will agree with that—the environmental health officer's involvement at an early stage under this clause could allow the simplest possible schemes to ensure that the work is carried out properly. That would reduce the overall burden on local authorities.

This new clause would achieve a twofold aim. First, it would ensure that the expertise of the EHOs in assessing defects in houses was fully utilised. Secondly, it would give council house tenants access to environ-mental health services. While this still does not give the secure tenants of these houses the same protection as exists under the housing legislation for tenants in the private sector, I hope that if the amendment is accepted it will redress the balance a little.

The new clause also makes use of the magistrates' courts method of arbitration. The time periods given are not unrealistic and will ensure that council houses do not fall into further disrepair. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I simply say from this side of the House that we are grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us yet another opportunity of looking at the vital subject of tenants' rights. We are sympathetic to the new clause. The Minister may be able to tell us that there is no need for it because, written in the small print in the various other bits of the enactment, there are matters that can take care of it. I do not think that the House can listen too often to the disparity between what, as we would call him. a "good" landlord does and what even a good landlord tries to do but fails to do; and the net sufferers are the poor people, the people who are defenceless, in trying to get what you and I would say surely are rights—that is, to live in a safe and healthy house.

The House will be aware that from this side of the Chamber we sought, unsuccessfully, to put some teeth into the Government's legislation on the right-to-repair clauses; and like the noble Baroness we do not like the implication in the Government legislation that, quite possibly, a part of the cost of a repair could fall upon the tenant. If the tenancy is right, then the obligation is to make sure that the property is kept in good order, and kept in good order fairly swifty, if a defect occurs that ought to be remedied. Sadly, one of the defects of the Government legislation is that, under the guidelines which have been issued, it is quite possible that there is not going to be sufficient incentive for the tenants to use what would appear to be rights.

If, in fact, all that a tenant gets is 75 per cent., 80 per cent. or 85 per cent., that shortfall can still be too much for someone who is quite poorly off. I am not trying to pre-empt what the Minister might say is already taken care of as far as the aspirations here are concerned. The noble Baroness used the right phrase, too: planned maintenance by a good landlord, whether public or private, ought to obviate all but the emergency situations. We on this side will listen with care to what the Minister has to say.

Baroness Denington

My Lords, I should like to express my personal gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for putting down this amendment. When I read it, I was so pleased that I thought how very silly I had been not to have put it down myself. I feel very strongly that what she has got down here will be an absolute blessing to (I regret to say) hundreds, if not thousands, of local authority tenants who are not able to use the procedures that, until very recently, I thought that they could use. They cannot call in the environmental health officer; or, they could call him in, but he cannot take any action. He cannot get the case to the courts because the environmental officer and the housing department are all part of the local authority and one cannot be acting against the other. And I regret to say how many local authorities fail in their duties.

Only last week, a woman who is a local authority tenant was talking to me. She has had rain coming through her roof for six months. It has been seen. It is well known. The authority has twice sent men to have a look at it and they say, "Oh, yes!" and nothing happens. She cannot do anything; nobody can do anything. This amendment, it seems to me, will remedy that situation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on behalf of so many thousands of people (as he knows full well) will accept this amendment and do something really tremendously helpful for all these people.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I have again listened with great interest to my noble friend Lady Vickers. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, at Report stage rightly pointed out that the courts have ruled that, as the law now stands, council housing authorities cannot serve public health or other statutory notices on themselves. From that advantage point, and, I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, irrespective of the new right to repair which does not actually come within the purview of this amendment, my noble friend wants to put an obligation on councils to look at what tenants themselves consider to be unsatisfactory living conditions. She has chosen the route of involving the environmental health officers and the formal approach of preparation of reports and the subsequent series of time-limited duties on councils.

I remain unconvinced that these statutory arrangements are necessary. Any secure tenant can already go to his landlord and complain about the unsatisfactory condition of his dwelling. In most cases, such landlords have duties under Section 32 of the 1961 Housing Act to keep in repair the exterior and structure of their properties and to maintain the installations for various basic services. If a landlord who has been notified fails to remedy a defect, then the tenant can pursue his case through the courts by exercising his rights to ask for specific performance of a repair under Section 125(1) of the 1974 Housing Act. Obviously, this will happen only in extreme cases as most public sector landlords are only too keen to keep their properties up to standard.

We do not feel that the approach in this amendment of giving to one part of the council, the environmental health officers, a diktat over another part, is one which should pass into law. I believe it is preferable for councils to make arrangements for dealing with the unfitness of their housing stock without having recourse to the full statutory procedures that can be invoked against other landlords and owner occupiers. I am told that a number of councils already have made satisfactory arrangements between their environ-mental health officers and their housing departments for dealing with problems arising from unfitness.

The way forward in our view is for other councils to do likewise in a spirit of co-operation where they think such arrangements will be helpful to all concerned. At this point I should say to my noble friend that I am quite sure that this would be in the majority of cases. In any event, the new clause is internally inconsistent in entitling all secure tenants to a report from the environmental health officer on the condition of their dwellings, but in placing a duty to carry out repairs only on their local authority. This suggests that the new right is intended only for council tenants. If the clause came into force, it would add considerably to the work load of environmental health officers. It is for housing departments to make whatever arrangements are necessary, calling on the help of their environ-mental health officer colleagues where appropriate to get inspections carried out. I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Broxbourne

Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, may I ask whether we may assume from what he says that, in default of putting this very sympathetic and well drafted new clause on to the statute book, he will, at any rate, circularise local authorities, drawing their attention to the importance of this matter and seeking their assistance in seeing that repairs are executed for these tenants?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, DOE circulars are not exactly in my gift. I take the point my noble friend has made and will do my best to see that this point is put into the next circular.

Lord Somers

My Lords, is it not true that while, as the noble Lord says, many local governments will do their best in situations like this, local governments, after all, are masters in their own house and there are some local governments who might be very unwilling to pay any attention to circumstances like these, and also there will be many of the poorer tenants who do not know anything about what rights they have got? How are they going to find out?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the answer to the main question of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was in my speech: that when it comes to the ultimate position, the remedy is through the courts.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he said "exterior"? He did not mention "interior", as I understand it. It is the interior ones that I am particularly worried about.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, my remarks included the interior where the interior is structural.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, I am not happy about my noble friend's reply. I thank the Opposition for the kind way in which they have helped, but I think I shall withdraw the amendment since I do not see any other possibility.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.