§ The Commons made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
§ 13 Page 3, line 16, leave out ("subsection (I) above and the provision made by subsection') and insert ("subsections (I) and")
§ 14 Page 8, line 18, leave out Clause 7.
§ 15 Page 22, line 11, leave out ("18A(2) or')
§ Note: the references in amendment 15 are to Bill (159)]
§ 16 Page 63, line 32, leave out ("18A(1) or")
§ 17 Page 68, line 27, leave out ("18A(1) or")
§ 18 Page 85, line 10, leave out paragraph 10.
§ 19 Page 88, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("Part 1V of Schedule 2 to that Act (charges and other matters) ")
§ 20 Page 90, column 3, leave out lines 48 and 49.
§ Lord BellwinI beg formally to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 13 to 20.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has moved the amendments formally, I intervene because, quite unconsciously—I hasten to say this immediately—he concluded Commons Amendment No. 12 before I had had the chance to intervene following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. This is not the time to repeat the arguments that we have had about the whole of this issue including the consequential amendments to Amendment No. 12. Like my noble friend Lady Birk I consider that this is a victory for the whole House, for all Benches of the House, in defence of the security of elderly people. I should like however to put three points to the noble Lord, if he feels able to answer them. Am I correct in the assumption that it is within the full power of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State alone, to determine whether or not those houses designed for elderly people shall be available for sale?
Secondly, if that is the case, will the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend that the figures for acceptance and rejection of applications made by councils on behalf of these houses should be published at least monthly? As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, pointed out, the figures that we were given, both for 172 rejections of applications for rural areas and for the exemption of houses, were totally unsatisfactory. Can we have the figures at least monthly so that they may be examined and the Government questioned on them regarding both applications for designation as rural areas and applications for exemption of those houses made by councils on behalf of elderly people?
Thirdly, the noble Lord mentioned the guidelines that he or his right honourable friend is to issue to local councils. I am sure we all welcome the fact that there will be consultations with the organisations. But will be or his right honourable friend also take into his confidence Parliament itself, and will be publish some form of preliminary guidelines so that these may be discussed before they are finalised, in order that the final say, the final word, rests with both Houses of Parliament?
§ Lord BellwinMy Lords, I said to my noble friend Lord Molson, and I say again to the noble Lord. Lord Hatch, that I am not going to reopen two years of debate at this stage when we are considering these Commons Amendments.
On the last point, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had been taking careful note, he would be aware that I stressed that it was welcomed that not only will there be guidelines, but that the wording of them will be discussed with the local authority associations as well as with others concerned; and that they will not be published before there has been this input. That has been agreed. That is as far as I can go towards helping the noble Lord.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Lord—
§ Lord Hatch of Lusby:—;has not answered a single one of my questions.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.