HL Deb 26 March 1984 vol 450 cc10-22

3.1 p.m.

Further considered on Report.

Clause 32 [Provisions as respects certain tenants of charitable housing associations etc.]:

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 50:

Leave out Clause 32.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of charitable housing associations. There is growing disquiet in this House and among most of these groups concerned with housing at the proposal which is intended to give the tenants of charitable housing associations large cash hand-outs to buy houses in the private sector. I may remind noble Lords that this proposal has not yet been debated in another place. It was inserted at the last minute when the Bill came to this House, to replace a scheme which was decisively defeated last year by a majority of more than two to one. This clause has arisen because the Government will not accept the overwhelming vote of this House gracefully, and neither will they recognise the good sense and social responsibility which motivated that vote, which was supported by noble Lords from all sides of the House. We have a duty to give the proposal searching and critical consideration.

During Committee stage we felt that we needed to hear more about the Government's proposals because so little detail had been released. My noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lady Nicol, and other noble Lords, probed and seriously criticised the scheme. The information provided by the Minister on that occasion and in subsequent correspondence has helped to clarify what is being proposed and how the scheme will be implemented. However, many grey areas will remain since the main provisions will be made by regulation. This is of the greatest importance when discussing the principle and the substance of this clause.

The more we examine this proposal, the more concerned we become. The basic principle is wrong morally, socially, and financially. The Government are seeking to make available large sums of money to a relatively small group of people who arc currently tenants of charitable housing associations. The Government say that only 100,000 tenancies will be affected. In other words, according to the Government, most housing associations will not be eligible. But if the Government wanted to promote owner-occupation, they should have turned their attention to all those people who currently find house purchase almost impossible.

Clause 32 does nothing for tenants of charitable housing associations occupying houses built before 1974, and who have probably been living in rented homes for very long periods. It does nothing for the tenants of private landlords, who will find it even harder to buy homes. It does nothing for the tenants of local authorities, who will probably have less chance of getting into housing associations because those associations will not be very anxious to receive too many people who have already worked out their residential qualification and will therefore be wanting to move on almost immediately and purchase a house somewhere else.

Also, Clause 32 will be of no use to potential first-time buyers. This provision will push up prices for many young people trying to buy their own homes, and therefore the costs of their mortgages—which will be higher than the cost to tenants helped under this scheme. It adds up to the fact that some thousands of people will receive large sums of money to choose where they wish to live, even though they are already living in good accommodation—as they must be living in houses or flats built since 1974. This is quite different from the right to buy of people in local authority property who have the right to buy their own homes.

The provision will make it possible for one to choose where one wants to live, which will be extremely pleasant; one will then be able to get the money and discount, and buy a house or flat of one's choice. As it has been estimated that the average discount will be in the region of £9,500, this situation will create a great deal of bad feeling among those people who may be in great need but who certainly will not have anything like this strange opportuntiy.

One of the key issues in the debate on this proposal has been the cost of the exercise. As proposed, it is an open-ended commitment which could presumably continue in perpetuity as new tenants achieve two years' tenancy and then claim their cash hand-outs. The Government have referred to their estimate of £10 million costs in the first year. However, the National Housing and Town Planning Council and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, who are very conversant with these areas of housing, have estimated the cost at £19 million. That is just for the first year, and the cost must build up year after year. On the basis of the Government's estimates alone, those costs will reach £50 million after five years: but the National Housing and Town Planning Council and the AMA forecast expenditure of £95 million after three years. At this stage, it is extremely difficult to know what the scheme will cost but it will certainly be a very expensive scheme and one that we can ill-afford.

Although the National Federation of Housing Associations appears to be going along with the scheme—albeit very reluctantly—many charitable housing associations individually are against it and have expressed their views very strongly—very often, to the federation.

Where will the money come from? In reply to a letter that I wrote to the Minister, he made it clear (and I am grateful to him for his explanation) that finance for the scheme will come from the Housing Corporation budget in the first year and from the national housing programme after that. 1 will quote from the Minister's letter to me dated 19th March: If take-up in the first yerar is significantly greater than the estimate we have made, the implications for the shape of the corporation's programme for the remainder of the year would depend on the size of the variation and the scope for change in the other elements which make up the programme. This is just the same position as would occur in considering the case for any variation from provision on any other element of the corporation's programme". What this means—although it is phrased in elegant bureaucratic newspeak—is that the money will really come out of the same pot.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced a £500 million reduction in the national housing programme for 1984–85 through his autumn Budget statement. The Government say that they made provision for this scheme in the Housing Corporation programme for 1984–85, but the programme was fixed and announced well before the final stages of the Pill in the other place; before there was any opportunity to discuss this clause. The Housing Corporation budget is part of that programme and is cash limited at £687 million for 1984–85. The corporation announced prior to the introduction of this scheme that the cash available is insufficient to meet the level of commitment for 1984–85. In a news release from the corporation it was announced that if the corporation completed its 1983–84 programme in full it would not be able to fund any new projects for next year. This is, in effect, a moratorium on existing Housing Corporation funds.

The housing association programme and, in future years, the national housing programme cannot stand the sort of leakage which will be necessary to fund this programme, so greatly is it under-funded at the moment in the light of our housing needs. A vital aspect of the Government's proposals is that when an ordinary sale under the right to buy takes place, whether it is through a local authority or a non-charitable housing association, the money from that sale is added to the national housing programme to boost spending. The Minister has on many occasions told us that there is the money for local authorities and the housing associations to build more houses. However, in this case there will be no financial gain for housing. In fact, there is a direct loss because the payments to tenants come out of the national housing programme but nothing is going back into it. This is an entirely different right to buy concept which involves the paying out of money from the national housing programme rather than receiving money. It is a most extraordinary business deal coming, as it does, from a Government who pride themselves on the businesslike attitude they take on these matters.

Further, the Government must try to be equitable—certainly so far as cash handouts are concerned. They should also be seen to be equitable. That is very important by any standard of good government. But this ill-begotten scheme meets neither of those criteria. It does not even have the merit of increasing the existing housing stock and improving employment prospects, which the scheme could have done if it had been restricted to newly built properties. Some two years ago the Government made money available to the non-charitable housing associations to purchase what were known as "turnkey" houses from builders and sell these on the basis of shared ownership. That scheme helped builders and first-time buyers, yet on this occasion no similar provision has been made. I should point out that the funds for that scheme have also been reduced.

Then there was do-it-yourself shared ownership—DIYSO. There are no funds made available for that next year. Under that scheme brought in by the Government people could buy on a shared ownership basis, but it does not involve cash handouts or discounts. So there were a number of options if the Government really wanted to increase home ownership and do it in a way that was both fair and financially viable.

To sum up, this clumsy and complicated concept is irrelevant to the multitude of housing problems in the country and the human misery involved. It does nothing to help unemployment, which is extraordinarily high in the construction industry. It does nothing to replenish our sadly depleted housing stock. It is expensive and it is administratively awkward. It is socially divisive. I believe that the House should be consistent and stand by its decision of last year and not be seduced by a cumbersome, unfair scheme which the totality of housing expenditure cannot possibly afford.

I believe that even this Government would not have the nerve to go back to the original proposal, which is what worries some Peers who do not like this scheme and who are concerned about voting against it. Frankly, I do not believe another place would stand for going back to the scheme which was so decisively overturned last year. Even if it did. I hope that we would certainly overturn it again here. I hope that this afternoon we shall take our courage in our hands—or rather, perhaps, in our feet—and accept the important responsibility that we have and make sure that this clause is taken out of the Bill. I beg to move.

3.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environ-ment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, that really was the most extraordinary speech I have ever heard the noble Baroness make in the five years I have been here. To talk of confirming the overwhelming vote of this House a year ago on something which was absolutely and totally different is quite astonishing. I made clear in Committee that what is now Clause 32 of the Bill does no more than provide the legislative framework for the home-ownership scheme for charitable tenants that we are proposing. The details of the scheme will be administrative. But, at Committee stage, I thought it right to make as clear as possible how the Government intend that the scheme should operate. I therefore went into some detail about how we would propose that discounts under the scheme should be calculated and the safeguards we are intending to introduce to ensure that the scheme is not abused.

I think I should now say a little about the main aspects of the scheme and the safeguards which we intend to build into it. However, I should first make clear the Government's very genuine concern to help the tenants of charitable housing associations who are both able to and want to take on the benefits and responsibilities of home ownership. That is what this scheme is designed to do. It does so without depriving the charitable landlords of the continued use for the objects of the charity of the dwellings in which people have lived. In this way, we have tried to meet not only the aspirations of those tenants who want home ownership but also the aspirations of the charities who want to continue letting to people in housing need.

As I made clear in Committee, many of these tenants will have been housed by a charitable housing association in the first place under nomination rights by the local authority. How can it possibly be fair that, when there are two equally deserving tenants housed from a local authority's waiting list, the one who is housed by the local authority should be entitled to help if he wants to buy his own home through the right to buy, but the tenant of the charitable housing association should be entitled to no help at all? Clearly, for starters, there is no way that that situation can be justified.

To suggest, let alone to claim, that these tenants are getting preferential treatment is to stand logic on its head. Quite the reverse is the case. It is only because these tenants do not get the right to buy—I do not need to remind your Lordships why that is—that they are obliged to seek a house on the open market if they want to become home owners. Many of these tenants are likely to want the same rights as local authority tenants; the right to buy the house they have lived in, and cared for, for many years. Far from getting preferential treatment, many tenants of charitable housing associations will remain disappointed that they do not have the right to buy their present home.

I should like to refer to the suggestion made in Committee that the scheme will have a serious effect on the housing market and that it will jeopardise the chances of young couples who are trying to buy their own homes. The noble Baroness touched on that again today. Let me say, first of all, that I am very proud that the Government have done so much to encourage home ownership, even outside the right to buy. Fifty thousand homes have been sold under low-cost ownership schemes since 1979. Can it seriously be suggested that this scheme to help charitable tenants is likely to have a significant effect on the whole housing market? I totally repudiate the suggestion that, at most, a few thousand tenants of charitable housing associations—and let us remember that we are talking here of tenants who are generally elderly or poor—will become a new kind of property shark or will roam the country, outbidding young couples who are trying to buy their first home.

Let us get the matter into perspective. All we are doing is to give a relatively small group of tenants—a group who would be unlikely to be able to afford home ownership through any other means—a chance to buy a home of their own. The discount will never be more, and will often be significantly less, than tenants receive under the right to buy.

Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage I explained at some length the discount rules that we propose to operate under this scheme. I shall not go into the details again, but I ought perhaps to emphasise the main point. The discount that a tenant receives under this scheme will never be more in cash than a tenant would be entitled to under the right to buy, and nor will the discount ever be a higher percentage of the purchase price than the tenant would obtain if he were buying his existing dwelling under the right to buy. These safeguards mean that there is absolutely no question of tenants receiving large cash handouts that would enable them to acquire a house on the open market virtually free.

I should like to mention another safeguard that we are introducing to ensure that the scheme is not abused. This is the requirement that a tenant should have lived in the same house or flat belonging to the charitable landlord for at least two years before he can take advantage of the scheme. This is to make sure that, quite apart from the major safeguard provided by the requirement that charitable landlords can let only to tenants who conform with their charitable objects, there can be no question of successive tenants being moved into charitable dwellings so as to take advantage of the scheme.

Finally, a word again about the costs of the scheme. We heard some rather startling figures from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I do not for one moment accept them. The only figure that the Government have given is that the cost is likely to be £10 million in 1984–85. I do not accept the figures which were quoted from the National Town Planning Council, and certainly not those from the AMA. I prefer the figure of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which is £14 million a year, even though that is slightly higher than our estimate. The figure may fluctuate upwards or downwards, but the figures that the noble Baroness mentioned reminded me of the kind of talk that we had in Committee when a figure of £600 million a year was mentioned. It is almost a question of think of a number, double it and then start multiplying it.

I should also mention that for future years the needs of the scheme will be taken into account when the Housing Corporation's programme is set. This will be one of the elements taken into account in setting its programme. All the talk of the noble Baroness about diminution of the allocation, and so on, is totally irrelevant. It is a red herring, We have said clearly that that is not the case, and I repeat that.

The noble Baroness said that the proposal would do nothing to replenish depleted housing stocks. With respect, that is exactly what it does. The Labour Party's key argument on everything to do with the right to buy is that it diminishes the availability of houses for rent. This proposal does exactly the opposite. As a tenant moves out into a home that he buys—and in this case it is a question of moving out—it makes available a further dwelling to let. That cannot be said about the right to buy and local authority housing, and nor did we ever say that. But here the situation is very clear. The charitable housing association will acquire every dwelling vacated by somebody who moves out and buys somewhere else.

It is a somewhat mean, vindictive and, frankly, cynical amendment. The case was argued in great depth in Committee. There is no doubt that noble Lords on this side of the House who, in the earlier debate on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part?, a year ago, expressed concern and voted against the then proposal, this time accepted it. The scene is totally different. You cannot even begin to compare what is being proposed here with what was being proposed then. It is a novel proposal, certainly, but there is nothing wrong with that. It is an attempt to find a solution for these people.

It is a very unusual case. There are no losers. The charitable housing association will retain the accommodation and the tenant will have a chance to own his home. The arguments about pushing up prices and about inflation are just a joke when one considers the numbers. The grants will have the strict limitations which I have explained. The proposal will bring fairness and equity to what is at present a very unsatisfactory situation. The only explanation that I can think of as to why noble Lords opposite wish to oppose the proposal is quite simply to take any opportunity whatever to stop people changing from public tenancies to owning a home of their own. It is anathema to them. The noble Baroness has told us that she intends to divide the House and strongly to oppose the scheme. It is not worthy of that kind of consideration on any grounds at all.

3.26 p.m.

Viscount Hanworth

My Lords, we support the amendment. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has covered everything which should be said about it. The Minister's case is based largely on only one thing—the difference for the tenants between living in a local authority dwelling and living in a charitable housing association dwelling, and the fact that it is unfair on the latter. To an extent it is, but we must see things in proportion. The vast majority of people live in private rented accommodation. This Bill will do nothing at all for them. We must keep a sense of proportion and realise that in certain cases there is a slight disadvantage for charitable housing association tenants, but it will do nothing to decrease the general unfairness in housing by selecting a very small proportion of the total.

Lord Monson

My Lords, there is very little that I can add to the potent arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. We should never lose sight of the fact that the potential beneficiaries under this hastily conceived scheme will be considerably better off if this clause remains unaltered than normal purchasers under right to buy schemes, because of the choice of properties and locations that these potential beneficiaries will be offered. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, suggested that this was a disadvantage, but I believe that most people would consider it to be a very considerable advantage. If he felt able to promise this afternoon to introduce at Third Reading, or to accept, an amendment, for example, to reduce the maximum cash payment in respect of any one property from £25,000 to £10,000—because, after all, he has already told us that the average will be no more than £6,000—I might hesitate before supporting this amendment, but if no such assurance is forthcoming I shall certainly support it.

Lord Moyne

My Lords, in returning to the charge in defence of this clause I am bound to repeat myself. I consider the proposal constructive, imaginative and ingenious. In so far as tenants avail themselves of it, vacancies will become available for people from charitable housing association waiting lists. Those moving out will obviously be the better off tenants, and the vacancies will be available for younger and less well off applicants. The clause is ingenious because purchases will be seen through by non-charitable associations, or, indeed, charitable ones if they wish to do so and are entitled to do so. A purchase through an association is important since the association handling the deal will be able to have the property surveyed. The Minister may like to assure us that vetting of proposed purchases will be part of the function of any housing association in seeing a deal through. This has an important bearing on subsequent maintenance. Concern has been expressed about this, and if the property is initially in good condition, the new owners should be able to save up for maintenance as they will be relieved of having to pay rent out of taxed income.

The other concern which has been expressed is about the effect on HAG funds for new building. The Ministry are, however, paying in an additional £10 million to take account of the expected cost. This sum is based on the take-up of the right to buy in a sample non-charitable housing association. To my mind, it is likely that the take-up of the proposed outside purchases is likely to be much lower, because of people not wanting to leave their existing homes, because of the difficulty in finding new dwellings in the neighbourhood to which they are accustomed, and because the purchases are limited to publicly funded tenants. Housing association grant has only existed for some 10 years, and the maximum discount will not be widely available. In fact, the maximum discount you can get is I think 12 years, but it may be 10. I think the take-up will be small and gradual.

The wording of the clause, which at first puzzled me, results from the proposals being permissive, with alternatives open for handling the purchases and vetting the properties. It gives an opportunity without conferring a right. I think that this is a constructive proposal which, when rightly understood, should appeal to all parties. An injection of an additional £10 million of Government money into housing, whether it results in more vacancies for the less well-to-do or whether there is something over for new building purposes is surely not something to be sneezed at by any of us concerned about the nation's housing shortage.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, before the noble Baroness winds up I wonder if I may say a word. I find it difficult to disagree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness said. The clause is a very clumsy one. Its drafting is difficult: I certainly would not have understood it if I had not known what it was intending to do. It refers to about eight clauses and four Acts which are not there and that does not make it very easy to understand. I agree with particularly one point the noble Baroness made and that is that it would be much better if the Housing Association houses had been left completely out of this Bill. As I understand the noble Baroness, she is quite happy that council houses should be sold, and I am sure she is right.

The reason for that is this, if I may speak in complete generalities. In the first half of this century, council houses were what people wanted and what people needed. They have done a tremendous job—let there be no illusion. In the second half of this century, people want owner-occupation. It is a change in the development of this country; and the Government are absolutely right to switch to putting their emphasis on owner-occupation. I have no doubt about this. This is the way we are going, and I am quite certain it is the right way.

However, there is a problem here. This particular clause does not really do the harm which the noble Baroness says. It does a certain very valuable service. Take the charitable association, for example. You do not go into a charitable association unless you are in need. The great body of the people holding charitable houses have no hope of buying their homes. They are providing part of the rented sector in this country which is disappearing and which is a terrible loss to those who are least well off. One must remember that. This clause—I was going to say not so much this clause but this Bill—does do a certain amount of damage to the housing associations in various ways. I know it is not intended to do so, but in fact it does. There are a certain number of people who, for various reasons, go in as charitable tenants—the least well off in the country—but sometimes money comes their way. They marry or something else happens. This can happen. They should be taken out of the charitable housing association places. Their place is then taken by somebody else who is in urgent need. The Bill allows that to happen, and in so far as it does that—and I do not say it does it in the best way—that is a useful service.

I want, however, to put one question to my noble friend the Minister. It is this. He said that this clause should apply to those able to take advantage of it. I should like to have those words enlarged: "if anyone can take advantage of it and do what is essential for an owner occupier: maintain his property". A house is a liability, let there be no illusion, we all know that. It costs a lot of money to maintain a house properly. That is the crux of it. Is that going to be enforced? I know one thing the noble Lord is going to say is this. There are regulations applying to local authorities which, in certain circumstances, are obliged to make a mortgage on certain conditions. I think they have to have a mortgage requirement which is similar to that of the building societies. That is all very well, but supposing with a discount you halve the price of the house. That particular regulation has no bearing because it no longer reflects the ability of the tenant to maintain his house properly. That is very important. I want to ask the noble Lord to put in a completely new regulation to make quite certain that those in charitable housing associations, who try to buy their houses can in fact really show that the homes can be maintained.

I want to put this point very clearly because if we support people to buy their houses and in 10 years they become a slum, that would be a disgrace, and there must be signs that the tenant is capable of doing that. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give me an answer to that. However, we must get this clear, because to spend public money on people buying their houses and then not being able to maintain them would be contrary to the interests of this country in every sort of way. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give some sort of indication on that, but with great respect, I think that this is absolutely essential.

One way might be to say that all these people must get their loans from a building society, or one might say a bank. Those organisations are pretty particular in seeing that the mortgage is properly paid, and seeing, as far as they can, that the house is maintained. That might be one way. I do not think it is a way that will appeal to the Government very much, I must say. But there are other ways of ensuring that people do not just buy houses on spec, but who really can live in the house and maintain it properly. If the noble Lord cannot say that, and cannot give some assurance as to that, I then really do not think this clause is good enough. If he can give that assurance, that the purchasers really are people who have got into better circumstances and can run a house properly, then 1 think possibly this clause would do. I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer that question.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, by the leave of the House if I may just very quickly make one or two observations on what has been said. The noble Viscount. Lord Hanworth, said that the Bill does nothing for private rented accommodation; but of course private rented accommodation is not provided by public funds, therefore it is not part of this matter at all. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that tenants will be better off because they will have a choice of location. You have to weigh that against the fact that you will not be able to continue in the home in which you may have lived for some years. You can argue that that is a plus or a minus, as you see it. But certainly I cannot say that there would be a reduction in the maximum. What we are setting out to do is to give a discount, as near as we can get it, equivalent to what would pertain under the right to buy from a local authority association dwelling, certainly not less, but then again not more either.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moyne. I would just say to him that he really touched upon a similar point which my noble friend Lord Selkirk said. His concern was. would we vet proposed purchasers? In a way that is a similar point to the one my noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned. But of course that will happen anyway: when an applicant applies for a mortgage the building society, bank, or whoever is the lender, always makes sure that the property is in good shape so that there will not be an onerous burden on the purchaser—

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, perhaps I may make just one observation. Surely the local authority or the Housing Corporation is under a legal obligation to provide a mortgage. That is an unqualified obligation, with no exceptions relating to the quality of the person to whom the mortgage is granted. Am I not correct in saying that that is in the Bill?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, with respect, that is not correct. Where a local authority grants a mortgage on an existing dwelling which is in its possession, the authority, as the landlord, first of all knows the state of the property, since it has been responsible for it for a long time. People buying a house under this scheme will be treated in exactly the same way as any other purchaser on the open market. In order to obtain a mortgage—and I should think that my noble friend knows more about this aspect than does anyone else in your Lordships' House—the applicant will have to satisfy the building society that his income is adequate not only to buy the house, but to be able to maintain it. That is the point. I take note of the concern which my noble friend expresses. We have talked about it, not least because he himself has drawn it to our attention on more than one occasion.

I turn to the other relevant factor. My noble friend asked what would happen if, due to the discount, the purchaser bought the house at half its actual value. That would mean that the purchaser's mortgage repayments would be only half of what they would otherwise have been, and so he would be in a less onerous position than if he was repaying a mortgage on the higher figure.

I understand and share my noble friend's point because we are concerned that people should be able not only to buy a house, but also to keep it in good condition. I do not believe that this is really a problem, even though I know that my noble friend is concerned about it. and I hope that on balance he will feel the same way. I think that that is all that I can additionally add. I am sure that again there is a big difference between us: but this is one case where I am absolutely convinced that there is advantage for everyone and disadvantage for no one.

Baroness Birk

My Lords. I am sorry that the Minister has taken this matter so much to heart as to describe as mean and vindictive what I thought was a reasonable point of view which illustrated differences of opinion which even this afternoon have been echoed across the House. There was nothing mean or vindictive in what I said. I was taking the clause as it stood and arguing against it. The Minister said that what we are proposing was totally different from the amendment which was so resoundingly won last year. It is not totally different: it is simply trying to find a different way to deal with the same people. It is a matter on which many doubts have been raised, even this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said that the Government are putting in an extra £10 million. Once again I must repeat that any extra money made available to the Housing Corporation or a housing association will come off the housing programme, which has been reduced. This is one of the important points.

The Minister also said that the tenants are not receiving preferential treatment. Other noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have made the point that if a tenant has a right of choice of house and location, that is preferential treatment compared with the opportuntiy merely to buy the house in which he is living, which he may not particularly like, because he wants to exercise his right to home ownership. The Minister said that there are no losers, but there are losers: the taxpayers are the losers, because this is public money that is to be paid out by way of discount. That. I imagine, is why the noble Lord. Lord Monson, asked for an assurance (which he certainly did not receive) on the whole question of discount.

At times the Minister seems to talk about young people taking the opportunity. Then he says that the tenants are generally elderly or poor. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, quite rightly made the point that the provision is clumsy and awkward; and he showed. I thought, his dislike of the whole clause. However. I do not think there is any point in detaining the House further, and 1 commend the deletion of the clause from the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO.1
CONTENTS
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Amherst, E. John-Mackie, L.
Attlee, E. Kilmarnock, L.
Aylestone, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Banks, L. Leatherland, L.
Beswick, L. Listowel, E.
Birk, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bishopston, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Blyton, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Bottomley, L. Lockwood, B.
Briginshaw, L. Longford, E.
Brockway, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. McNair, L.
Caradon, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mayhew, L.
Collison, L. Monson, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Nathan, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Oram, L.
David, B. Paget of Northampton, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Peart, L.
Denington, B. Perry of Walton, L.
Diamond, L. Phillips, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. [Teller.]
Ennals, L. Porritt, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Rathcreedan, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Ross of Marnock, L.
Gainsborough, E. Sainsbury, L.
Gaitskell, B. Seebohm, L.
Gallacher, L. Serota, B.
George-Brown, L. Shackleton, L.
Gladwyn, L. Stallard, L.
Gormley, L. Stamp, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Stedman, B.
Grey, E. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Grimond, L. Stone, L.
Hale, L. Strabolgi, L.
Halsbury, E. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hampton, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hanworth, V. Tordoff, L. [Teller.]
Harris of Greenwich, L. Underhill, L.
Hayter, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Walston, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Ilchester, E. Wells-Pestell, L.
Jacques, L. Wigoder, L.
Jeger, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alport, L. Duncan-Sandys, L.
Ampthill, L. Eccles, V.
Arran, E. Effingham, E.
Auckland, L. Ellenborough, L.
Avon, E. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Bauer, L. Elton, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Exeter, Bp.
Bellwin, L. Faithfull, B.
Beloff, L. Forte, L.
Belstead, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Broxbourne, L. Gardner of Parkes, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Glanusk, L.
Clitheroe, L. Glasgow, E.
Cockfield, L. Glenkinglas, L.
Coleraine, L. Gormanston, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Gray of Contin, L.
Daventry, V. Gridley, L.
De Freyne, L. Hailsham of Saint
Denham, L. [Teller.) Marylebone, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Harvey of Prestbury, L.
Hawke, L. Northchurch, B.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Onslow, E.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Orkney, E.
Killearn, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Kilmany, L. Pender, L.
Kimberley, E. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Kinnoull, E. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Kitchener, E.
Lane-Fox, B. Portland, D.
Lauderdale, E. Reigate, L.
Long, V. Renton, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. St. Davids, V.
Lyell, L. Sandford, L.
McAlpine of Moffat, L. Selkirk, E.
McFadzean, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Somers, L.
MacLehose of Beoch, L. Spens, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Strathspey, L.
Malmesbury, E. Sudeley, L.
Mancroft, L. Swansea, L.
Marley, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Maude of Stratford-upon- Teviot, L.
Avon, L. Trefgarne, L.
Merrivale, L. Trenchard, V.
Mersey, V. Trumpington, B.
Middleton, L. Vickers, B.
Molson, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Morris, L. Westbury, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Whitelaw, V.
Moyne, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.