Lords Sitting of 28 October 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Headstart Scheme
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many young people will benefit from the introduction of the new Headstart scheme, launched in six of the eight areas covered by the inner cities initiative, and what effect it is hoped to achieve.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the inner cities headstart scheme operating in the six task force areas will provide initial information and advice on self-employment to some 3,000 young people. I am confident that the record of the industrial society in enterprise training will ensure that Headstart makes a most effective contribution to the training of young people from our inner cities.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply—it seems an excellent scheme—perhaps I may ask him whether he thinks that industrialists will do enough to ensure that this scheme is really successful.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, but I suspect that the way in which Headstart will operate will be to help self-employment for young people, as we have found over the years that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get industrialists, for obvious self-evident reasons, to move to the inner cities. Therefore the purpose of the inner city initiative as a whole is to take eight areas in the country and to see what we can do to restore to the inner cities that which used to be theirs—an entrepreneurial society.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is there anything in hand to make use of the training when it is completed by the young people so that they can carry on being employed, using the training they have received, and not simply be unemployed?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. The whole purpose of this training (and where it is innovative) is that it is directing young people towards the advantages, and, if they accept, towards training for self-employment so that they can begin not only to work for themselves, but, hopefully, in the fullness of time, to employ others.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government's intention is to extend from the six areas in the inner city initiative to all the eight areas, if it were successful in its initiation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the purpose of this scheme is to learn. When we have learnt, we shall see how far and to where we should extend it.

Cancer Screening: Younger Women
2.40 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to extend screening facilities in view of the alarming increase of cervical cancer, particularly among younger women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, our guidance to health authorities is that all women who are or have been sexually active, irrespective of age, should be regularly screened for cervical cancer. In January this year all health authorities were told to give priority to improving their cervical cancer screening programmes, including implementing computerised call and recall systems within two years, and ensuring that laboratories avoid backlogs. We are determined to improve the effectiveness of the screening programme for all women.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer, which is spiced with good intentions; but one would like to ask her what resources she is putting behind that. Is she aware that of the 2,000 women in this country who annually die of this disease, 60 per cent. have never been screened, and that practically all those deaths could have been prevented? Is she also aware that there is a pre-cancerous epidemic of a new and more virulent strain, largely among young women in the 25 to 35 age group, which is likely to lead to a doubling of mortality within 10 years unless urgent steps are taken? Can she perhaps tell us a little more about the progress of the new computerised call and recall system that was ordered by Mr. Kenneth Clarke in 1984? Can she tell us whether we are on course with that programme?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to deal first with the question of finance, health authorities are best placed within the framework of national priority to judge local needs and circumstances. Authorities have been told to attach a high priority to improving their cervical screening programmes. They have the resources: for example, £700 million extra cash for 1986–87, plus over £150 million from cost improvement programmes. Improvements to cervical cancer screening are not expensive. The remaining district health authorities can computerise for only £4 million in 1986–87 and 1987–88.
With regard to the question about younger women and an increase in cervical cancer, the number of cases

603
of cervical cancer and deaths have both declined, but there is an upward trend among women under 45. That makes it all the more important that the screening programme should be made as effective as it can be.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Minister please agree that we have two ways to attack this problem? I welcome what the Minister has said about the advice to the health authorities on cervical screening, but perhaps she will tell us what the Government are doing about the cases where women who have been lucky enough to be screened have to wait for three or four months with the awful thought hanging over them that something may go wrong in the waiting period.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords. The question of call and recall is one that is actively occupying the minds of health authorities and the Government. The Government have issued instructions to health authorities that call and recall systems should be implemented as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to answer my question? I asked what happens when women who have been called in, have been screened and have to go into hospital, have to wait for three or four months with that hanging over their heads?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is still a matter for local authorities and we are doing the best we can with waiting lists—which is a different subject from the Question on the Order Paper today.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister has just said that she is determined to improve screening facilities for all women. Can she say whether a decision has been made following the suggestion earlier this year by the TGWU and APEX that women of the Palace of Westminster should have a screening service provided by the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign? Does she recollect that the House of Commons Services Committee rejected this but that the House of Lords Administration Committee is considering it? Does she not agree that this would not only benefit the women working in the Palace of Westminster but would also provide a lead for women all over the country to present themselves for screening?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that the Administration Committee of your Lordships' House has this matter under active consideration. The committee is considering the possibility of ad hoc, on-site screening. No final decision has yet been taken. I understand that the appropriate Commons committee will also be consulted. I agree with the final sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness, but basically this is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government but for the Lord Chairman.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, a report in the Independent newspaper dated 25th October claims
604
that a newer spatula, which is called the Lerner, doubles the detection rate of abnormalities. If that is correct, will the department recommend its adoption by the clinicians?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not aware of this new spatula. I suggest that this is a matter for general practitioners to follow up as they see fit.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Baroness whether she reads the Independent, but my supplementary question relates to the Daily Telegraph. Does she recall that the Daily Telegraph recently published a report which said that only 75 of the district health authorities out of 192 were on target for a full call-and-recall system as recommended by the former Minister of Health and referred to by the noble Baroness? Can she give us an update on where we stand now and what the prospects are for either the end of this year or the end of next year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I gave those statistics in an Answer to a similar Question last week. I accept that the performance of individual health authorities varies. Well organised local programmes are successful. Our job is to see that all authorities match the standard of the best. More authorities are directly making improvements to their programmes and we have now told all of them to give cervical cancer screening a higher priority in the future.
Lord Ennals: Forgive me, my Lords, but if cervical cancer screening is a high priority can the noble Baroness give the figures in order to show just what progress has been made? That is what I asked for.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I gave the figures last week.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Government have carefully studied the BMA's recent report on cervical cancer screening and whether they agree with any of the conclusions? Does she recall that the BMA recommends three-yearly screening for women between the ages of 20 and 65 and that we have not yet even met her own department's 1984 guidelines for five-yearly intervals? Will the Government very seriously study this report and draw the appropriate conclusions?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is still an acute shortage of laboratory technicians to deal with screening the smear samples and that many of them are so hard pressed that there is a great number of false positives and negatives? Is she also aware that there is new computerised technology which can screen the slides; that any slides which show abnormalities can then be looked at by humans; and that this would considerably speed up the results of the smears?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to laboratory staff, authorities are recruiting more staff.

605
We have told all authorities to give priority to ensuring that the laboratory can meet demand and avoid backlogs.

Football Hooligans: Video Identification
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are encouraging the police to use video recordings to identify hooligans at football matches.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): Yes, my Lords. The Government warmly welcome the use of video-recording equipment at grounds. It has a deterrent value, as well as helping to identify offenders.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory reply. As the first application of this method appears to have been very successful, attracting the willing help of the public, including that of parents of possible offenders, are the Government satisfied that the equipment required is within the means of the police forces concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it all depends on what equipment is required by those who own and run the football stadiums. If they want to go for an expensive system, I am sure that they will judge that on their budgets. But we believe that the basic system which the police find satisfactory is well within the capabilities of football clubs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the time is well overdue when credit should be given to the managements of many of the football clubs who suffer from the hooligan problem? I speak as the president of Millwall Football Club, and it is a fact that a tiny minority have made it impossible for decent people to go to watch football. The clubs themselves are very much aware of the problem and are prepared to co-operate with the police to do everything they can. It really is about time that somebody in high places said something decent about football clubs themselves.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said plenty of nice things about football clubs, and I should like to join her in saying I am glad that they have come along with the Government in this partnership to try to improve the situation.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister any details of arrests and convictions as a result of the use of these video systems?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have not those figures, but I can tell the House that arrests at football league grounds at Divisions 1 and 2 matches fell by 47 per cent. last season.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Question is about the police use of video recordings. Can the noble Lord the Minister indicate what grants are made to the police to enable them to have these video recordings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the Football Trust, which is a legally independent body established by a trust deed in 1979, can give a grant for police-approved equipment up to £25,000 and for non-police approved equipment up to £12,500.

Northern Ireland: Human Rights
2.52 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to promote a declaration of rights for Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, we are considering, together with the Irish Government, proposals which will underline the commitment of both governments to the effective protection of human rights.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful for that Answer. Will the same initiative be taken so far as the United Kingdom as a whole is concerned?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there was a lengthy debate on this subject at the end of last year, initiated by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. There are major technical difficulties in having an effective Bill of Rights in only one part of the United Kingdom; and of course this would also oblige the judiciary to make what we should call political judgments. That was the main reason why my right honourable and noble colleagues decided recently against a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why a Bill of Rights would be a good thing for Irishmen and not for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thought I had indicated that we considered that we should treat this matter on a United Kingdom basis.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can elaborate a little on his reply. On 6th June the Secretary of State said that he would "listen carefully"—those were his words—to any proposal put forward by the Irish Government relating to the advantages of a Bill of Rights. But in the communique issued on 6th October, after the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference, it was recorded that the Government saw some difficulties with the proposal.
The communiqué went on to say that they were prepared to consider alternative initiatives. So this is

607
my question: are we therefore not right in concluding that since last June the Government's view has been hardening against a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, gave us the whole quote from the communiqué after the Intergovernmental Conference meeting on 6th October. No, the Government's view is not hardening, but, as the noble Lord will know, and as I hope I have indicated already, there are many aspects of this particular matter to be considered. As the noble Lord will be aware, many of them were considered in your Lordships' House during the debate last December.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, may I put a second question to the Minister? The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, with the financial support of the Government and other support, is undertaking a major review of human rights in Northern Ireland and of the laws and institutions protecting the citizen against discrimination. That is a major review. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will take no decision concerning human rights in Northern Ireland which would require legislation until the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has been presented to the Government in 12 months' time?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I could not give that guarantee, but I should say that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights began this extensive review in 1985, as no doubt the noble Lord will be aware. I think also he may take as an indication of our support the fact that the Government have given £150,000 of additional funding as well as additional staff. So the Government do take this work very seriously. However, I could not give a guarantee, particularly on the time-scale, such as the noble Lord has sought.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, in examining the feasibility of a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, will the noble Lord take proper account of the need to consider the right to work as an essential right of the people of Northern Ireland? In that situation, does he join in commending the Northern Ireland Committee of the ICTU on its recent initiative in the calling of a conference to insist that the men of terror shall not be allowed to intimidate ordinary men and women from going about their normal work in Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has indicated our strong support, and I hope that might help the noble Lord. I am sure your Lordships, as well as the noble Lord, will be happy to know that the Government support equal opportunities in Northern Ireland, and a body of legislation exists to assist this particular aspect. A consultative paper called Equality of Opportunity in Employment in Northern Ireland was published on 16th September last, and we would welcome any comments on this document by 31st March 1987.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that the fact that the minority population in the south of Ireland has sharply decreased in both absolute and proportionate terms over the past 65 years, whereas the minority population in the North has increased over the same period, both proportionately and absolutely, demonstrates that a Bill of Rights is needed every bit as much in the Republic as it is in the North of Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is very interesting, but I believe that it is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Foreign Affairs Council.

Unemployment Benefit Claimants
2.58 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the test of availability for work. The Statement is as follows.
This summer we have been testing a new procedure following criticisms by the Public Accounts Committee about the effectiveness of the current arrangements for testing the availability for work of claimants for unemployment benefit. The new procedure consists of an expanded questionnaire issued to all new claimants which seeks information about the work they are looking for and what steps they are taking to make themselves available for work. Claimants have also been interviewed where appropriate to assist in determining their eligibility for benefit and to help them towards suitable labour market opportunities.
Perhaps I could remind the House that it is a longstanding condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit that persons have to be available for work on every day for which they make a claim. The test of availability is normally satisfied by persons showing that they are actively seeking work on those days for which benefit is paid. The final decision about entitlement rests with the independent statutory authorities—an adjudication officer in the first instance—and there are statutory rights of appeal against decisions made.
The new procedure that we have tested in the pilot areas has shown that the better evidence provided by the new form enables a proper assessment to be made of a person's entitlement to benefit. We will therefore be introducing it progressively in all unemployment benefit offices from the end of October.
The rules that make benefit payable only to those people who are available for work are long standing and the Government have no present intention to change them. The new arrangements are simply changes in the procedure in applying the existing rules.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, for making this Statement in the House today, though I have to say that we are rather disappointed that he has not given details of the expanded questionnaire. We must therefore rely on press reports in this morning's newspapers. Indeed, it seems that the Government had to be pressurised into revealing their intentions through the disclosure of documents and press reports today. Can the noble Lord explain why a Statement was not made earlier than today? Can he also say why press reports this morning referred to a Statement to be made by the Paymaster-General to the House of Commons today and omitted the fact that the noble Lord was to make a Statement to this House, as I am very glad that he did?
Is the noble Lord aware that the Opposition believes that the Statement is quite unhelpful? It indicates that the Government are bankrupt of real ideas for curing mass unemployment and are instead trying to fool the electorate by further massaging and manipulating the figures. Despite this, unemployment continues on its inexorably upward course. In September, the unemployment total soared to 3.5 million—that is, according to the official figures—and monthly increases during the past six months have averaged 9,300. If the CBI is to be believed, job losses will continue over the months to come at the rate of some 8,000 a month.
Will the noble Lord confirm that this is the eighteenth change in the method of compilation of unemployment statistics since 1979? Will he say what the official unemployment figures would show on the basis of calculation used before 1979? We should be most interested to have that figure. Does he agree that there is a qualitative difference between past changes, which are a case of statistical manipulation, and these changes which are designed to pressurise people and frighten them off the unemployment register?
Is it not the case that these questions, which are contained in today's press and which are to be asked of the unemployed, are not only obnoxious in themselves but could appear even more threatening by the manner of their asking? Is it not also reprehensible that applicants will be in danger of being refused benefit if they do not answer questions in a manner suitable to the interrogator? It seems that there can be no record of applicants refused in this way—or is it intended that a record of refusal should be kept and be open to scrutiny?
Is it correct, as reported in the press, that the recruitment of fraud staff has been halted to switch more interrogators to this scheme? Does this mean that the Government are less concerned with catching the crooked and more concerned with keeping the genuine applicant off the unemployment register? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the House.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the Statement in this House this afternoon. However, I must agree with the noble Lord on the Front Bench of the Labour Party that it is an extremely brief and unrevealing Statement. I should very much like to know the real reason behind this change. I take it that the questionnaire which has been referred to is
610
a written questionnaire since the phrase used is "questionnaire issued to all new claimants."
What sort of questions will be asked? It is impossible for us to make a judgment about this until we know what the questions are, but is it not likely that people (and especially people from unskilled categories who find themselves unemployed) will be somewhat intimidated and apprehensive in filling in a written questionnaire? We cannot judge the extent to which this will be so without knowing what the questions are. We must ask the Secretary of State to tell us more about the nature of these questions.
Has it not always been the practice, and ought it not always to be the practice, for the staff of Jobcentres and employment exchanges to discuss orally with applicants what kind of work they are looking for and whether they are available? Why is it necessary, if they are doing their jobs properly with oral contact with claimants, to issue a form which they must fill in? Surely there are quite enough forms to be filled in, and this is a bad moment to ask more people to contribute more forms. Moreover, if I were an unemployed person in many parts of this country, and if I were asked what I was doing to make myself available for work and what kind of work I was looking for in areas with 20 per cent. unemployment, and in which unemployment for the unskilled (which a great many of these people will be) is high, I should take a very poor view of being asked what I was doing to look for work when the chance of getting it was so very remote.
I am bound to say that if the Government had not cut down on staff in Jobcentres, as they did a year or two ago, it might be possible to carry out this work in a far more humane and intelligent way by personal contact with the unemployed, rather than by issuing forms to be filled in which are likely to intimidate and produce little that is useful. I have not in the past joined in the argument that what the Government are really trying to do is to massage the unemployment figures. However, Statements of this kind make it extremely difficult for us not to believe that this is one of the major purposes of this change.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess my amazement at the response which I have now heard from the other side about what is a mere requirement by the Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps I may read the actual wording of the Public Accounts Committee report. It says:
"The formal tests of availability for work are weak and we welcome the DHSS's decision to consider whether more effective tests are practicable. We recognise that resources for undertaking tests are limited but we urge that a review of the role and number of unemployment review officers now being undertaken indicates that an increase in the scale and scope of their work will be cost-effective".
I should remind noble Lords that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee at that time was not from our side. The PAC's recommendations is the precise reason that the test is there.
For the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have a word of advice: he should not regard press reports as infallible. The noble Lord referred to 3.5 million unemployed as being the last figure and commented on the soaring increase. I believe it was the Guardian which said on that day that unemployment was going up by 100,000,

611
whereas seasonally adjusted it showed the greatest fall since April 1979 and the number of vacancies showed the greatest increase since December 1979.
No one in your Lordships' House, no matter on which Bench anyone sits, would actually welcome people being out of work and people fraudulently claiming benefit. I am sure that that is common ground between all of us. No one would want that. Indeed, when unemployment benefit first came in there was a requirement to sign on daily. That was changed to a weekly requirement and it was during the lifetime of this Government that it was changed to a fortnightly requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked for the reason behind this questionnaire, and of course the reason is the Public Accounts Committee. She asked, "Does the staff not ask these questions?" It was the Public Accounts Committee that criticised the benefit officers because they merely asked an applicant coming in for benefit, "Are you available for work?" So long as the applicant said yes, that was an end to the matter.
I shall now read out some of the questions from the questionnaire. The first is, "What are you doing to find work?" That is not an unreasonable question since unemployment benefit is payable on a daily basis and has only been due legally since 1948 on the basis that the applicant is doing something to find work. It asks, "What job do you normally do?". I do not find that a very difficult question. It goes on, "What job are you looking for?" Someone must have some idea of what job. Then, "Are you willing to consider any other jobs? Yes or No. If No, please give your reasons". I do not find that very difficult. It continues, "Can you start work today? Yes or No. If not, please say why. When can you start work? Are you looking for full-time work? Yes or No. If No, please give your reasons. Write against each day the hours you can work". None of those questions is difficult. The form goes on, "How far are you able to travel to work? Do you have any adults or children to care for during working hours? If Yes, can you make immediate arrangements for their care if you get a job?".
Unemployment benefit is available to those people looking for work. There are other benefits the purpose of which is to look after people. The questionnaire continues, "What was your weekly wage or salary before deductions in your last job? What is the minimum weekly wage or salary you are willing to take now? If the new wage you are looking for is more than the last wage, please say why". I hardly think that that is a difficult questionnaire.
If anybody finds that a difficult questionnaire when they come in to register for benefit, your Lordships may be assured of this. If anybody protests, there is an adjudication officer who will rule on the case, and if that adjudication officer's decision is at fault there is an appeals procedure. There is a long and steady body of case-law regarding availability for work. It has been in existence since 1948. This Government are not changing it. But we are ensuring that benefit will go, and freely go, to those entitled to it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, quite apart from the Public Accounts Committee, people in every street in the land invariably have knowledge of some flagrant abuse of the social security system as it stands? Is he also aware that those self-same people are asking today what the Government are doing about it? This questionnaire is a way of doing something about it which need bring fear only to people who are abusing the system. Those who are not abusing the system have nothing to fear. Is my noble friend further aware that people hope that he will not be put off doing his duty by silly talk about massaging figures for electoral reasons?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he said and for his reminder that I did not deal with one point made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite. I read about the 18 changes. Inflation is very much with us. It was 16 only a day or so ago and it goes up by one a day. It is true to say that there have been six changes since 1979 which have altered the nature of the count. The last change was to include the self-employed—I do not think that the self-employed in this country are non-persons—for the purpose only of calculating the percentage of those out of work. As regards the change before that, John Prescott, a spokesman for the Opposition in another place, admitted on television that he would have made precisely the same change, which was to delay the count for two weeks in order to get a more accurate figure.
The biggest change was in the administrative nature of the count itself, when we went from compulsory registration at Jobcentres, which was a clerical function and did absolutely nothing to help unemployed people, to the present count, which is a claimant count. There is one other indicator of unemployment in this country and that is the Labour Force Survey. The Labour Force Survey shows that 13 per cent. of people claiming benefit are not looking for work or are not interested in a job. The Labour Force Survey showed that at that time the figure of those unemployed who had looked for work in the previous month was 2·8 million and was going down.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it seems that the Government are getting very near to what the Tory Party did in the 1920s, when they cleared our people off the dole on the basis of not genuinely seeking work? We were up in arms and it took us nearly 18 years to get shot of that obnoxious thing which was then perpetrated by the Conservative Government and, by God, they are getting very near to it now!
3.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, let me assure your Lordships' House that I would not inflict on the unemployed the conditions which the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951 inflicted on the unemployed, which was making them turn up daily in order to sign on. That we should never do. As for the rest, can anyone in the House say that he actually welcomes people not entitled to benefit getting it? There is one other very important matter and it is

613
simply this. There are many in our society who claim the wrong benefits. There are many who come forward for unemployment benefit when they are entitled to sick, disablement or other benefits and when they would often be better off with those other benefits. It is our duty, if we have anything of a caring society, to ensure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled and at the same time to ensure that people do not get benefits if they are not entitled to them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the object is to catch the fraudsters, the noble Lord's questionnaire will be quite useless. That is because the fraudsters are extremely good at it and they will romp through the questionnaire with a smile on their face, whereas the innocent and the inadequate, who are generally worried about it, will fill it in with great foreboding. But the noble Lord will not catch one single fraudster with the questionnaire.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I repeat that this questionnaire does not have the object of catching fraudsters. The clever in our society will get past any test. That is always a problem. It is a problem for any government and any system. It applies not only to those drawing benefit, but to all things in our world. The purpose of this test, in following the PAC, is simply to ensure that people recognise and know exactly on what terms unemployment benefit is paid to them, which are that they should be available for work. That is the purpose of the form. It is not for catching people. I have heard such curious tales on the other side; I have heard such curious tales on the media before this form came out about how it would reduce the unemployment benefit paid to hundreds of thousands. Is anybody seriously saying that there are hundreds of thousands of people claiming benefit to which they are not entitled? If there are, we should do something about it. But I am not saying that. I am merely saying that this is there to help people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the suggestions which have been made from the other side of the House about this action, will my noble friend bring out even more clearly that the Government in this action have been paying full attention to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in another place and that that body—I speak as a former chairman of it—is perhaps the most respected of all Select Committees in another place and is presided over at the moment by a very distinguished member of the Labour Party?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am well aware of the Public Accounts Committee. In a previous incarnation I had the unfortunate pleasure of being an accounting officer and was responsible for all the spending of the Manpower Services Commission. I know exactly how much we need to ensure that the PAC's wishes are followed.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that he would read some of the questions which were put. Is he prepared to make the complete list available in the Library of the House?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I did in fact read all the questions. I shall certainly put the list in the House. I thought it might appear to be a wrong interpretation if I did not read them all. I am afraid that I bored many in your Lordships' House but I read them all.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that there are people in all parties who believe that the best way of preventing abuse of unemployment benefit is to guarantee employment after a given period of unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I hear that. I hear that from the Select Committee of another place about a guarantee for the three-year unemployed. It is very difficult to fulfil such a guarantee. We already have considerable problems and protests from part of the private sector about the size of today's community programme. Let me assure all in your Lordships' House that unemployment is not welcomed by any government in any country. If there was an easy way out of it, even if this Government would not take it, some other government would, yet unemployment in Europe still continues.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is it not a fact that anyone who claims benefit in this country, be it unemployment, sickness or any other benefit, fills in a form and has to give all his family details, his background and so on, on that form? What is different about this form from the form that we all have to fill in anyway when we claim benefit, and how often will it be necessary to renew the answers in a follow-up to this form?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this is a form which is filled in at a person's initial signing on for unemployment benefit. In that respect, it is different from the other forms, which are normally required when you are looking for sickness, disability or other maintenance benefits and when, in those circumstances you are making your claim for those benefits.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if anyone genuinely wishes to give help to the unemployed or to find a proper analysis of this great social problem, questions of this kind must be asked? Indeed the only question is why more of them were not asked before.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I confess that I find curious the reaction to this straightforward introduction of a piece of administrative work. It is almost as though the one thing everyone fears is that unemployment will go down as a result thereof. But true unemployment will not be affected one whit in this country by this form, for anyone who is genuinely unemployed will not be deterred by it at all.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I presume to congratulate the Secretary of State and recognise the deep sincerity he feels in dealing with this dreadful question of unemployment? Is he aware that the

615
implementation of the proposals in the White Paper on Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation is likely to reduce and destroy jobs for several tens of thousands of persons in the spare parts industry? Therefore would it not be proper in his view to abolish those principles in the White Paper so that a test for availability for work is not necessary? I apologise that I have not given notice of this quesion to the Secretary of State and I realise that perhaps he may not wish to answer it at this time, as it is perhaps somewhat wide of the matter before us. Nevertheless, the point was raised on this side of the House. One way to get rid of the test of availability for work is to make sure that one is not destroying jobs at this stage.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be happy that I agree with him that his question is a long way removed from the Statement before us and is one which should not be asked in regard to this form. No doubt the noble Lord can put down such a Question if he so wishes. Perhaps I may say that whatever steps are taken, I shall always hope that as part of the normal formal test for unemployment benefit it should be established that it is paid only on the condition that individuals hold themselves available for work.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the great majority of the unemployed are desperate to seek and obtain work? There is no doubt in my mind that a great many of those who have asked questions on the Statement have never experienced unemployment and the daily signing on for the dole. If they had, they would have taken a different line because unemployment is a disaster and a psychological disaster, and this form will only impose a greater burden. It is a psychological error and will only rub salt into the wound.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Lord because this test has nothing to do with unemployment; it has to do with the conditions which must be fulfilled by people drawing unemployment benefit. With the greatest of respect, I am fully aware of the evils of unemployment. I have spent much of the past four or five years of my life concerned with such matters. I believe that we are on the right course for remedying an evil, but I must repeat that unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom; it exists all over Europe. It is an illness of the industrialised world and we are taking steps to cure it; and we will.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this matter can be taken for one moment out of any political argument? Will he kindly deal with the question purely on the basis of humanity and practicality? Is he aware that many employers complain that their present employees find it difficult to be literate? Is he therefore aware that when he inflicts a number of the questions we have heard of today upon unfortunate people who are unemployed and may very well be lacking in literacy, he is in fact perpetrating what is nothing less than a torture?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who starts his question by saying that he should like to take this matter out of politics and then says to me the most underhand thing possible. Do your Lordships seriously believe that we are in the business of tricking people—
Lord Mishcon: I did not say—
Lord Young of Graffham: Oh no, my Lords, a torture, a trick—out of benefit they are entitled to? We are not. Literacy does not affect the position. Obviously if people are not literate, it does not mean to say that they are denied benefit. Of course it does not; nor will they ever be denied it. We are asking questions. We want answers from people, and by one means or another we shall obtain those answers in the most humane way and ensure that only those who are entitled to benefit receive it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, the Minister, if I may say so, is doing what I did not do. I did not seek to twist any words. I am asking the noble Lord how he expects thousands of unemployed people who have not had the benefit of the education we have had to answer questions of this kind.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "torture", but I shall not go so far as to say that that is below politics. But I shall say that I do not think you have to have a double first to be able to say what you are doing to find work, nor to answer the question, "What job do you normally do?", nor even to answer the question, "What job are you looking for?", or any of the other questions. These are not trick questions. These are all questions fundamental to the grant of benefit; and they are there for that purpose, and that purpose only. If the noble Lord thinks this is a trick, then the noble Lord carries deep and base suspicions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I did not use those words.
Lord Young of Graffham: Is "a torture".
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, will the Secretary of State accept that there is no disposition on the part of the occupants of these Benches to seek to defend people who do not treat fairly their applications for work, and that there is no propensity whatever to take action which would ensure that they were not required to pass a fair and effective test of being available for work? Any government must do this. It is equally fair that any government should pass an effective test of their capacity to ensure the availability of work; and will the noble Lord accept that on this test the Government have manifestly failed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I can assure the noble Lord that this is a sensible and humane test. We allow applicants to take away the form and return it later. If anybody suffers under disabilities that are such that he feels he would rather not fill in the form, that course is possible. This is not a trick in any way, as I hope many noble Lords opposite and in other parts of the House will accept.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that a claimant who has been looking after an elderly or disabled relative and who has himself been unemployed for a long time should not be disbarred from unemployment benefit if he fails to make alternative arrangements immediately and does so only after a reasonable period of time?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sorry, but there may well be, and there often are, other benefits that people can get in those circumstances. Those are the benefits they should receive. I do not believe that we should make citizens of this country perjure themselves by saying that they are available for work when they are not. This is one of the points that the form is intended to detect.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of Thursday last be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed, by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
There are four Motions in my name, and if I may, I should like to speak briefly to all four. They are all Motions responding to Motions moved in another place allowing Private Bills to be carried over into the next Session.
The first and third Motions on the Order Paper are in respect of Lords Bills now in the Commons. The second and fourth Motions deal with Commons Bills which are still in that House. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of Thursday last.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Port of Fosdyke Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons messages of yesterday be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth and last Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

619
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Housing and Planning Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Housing and Planning Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Exception to the right to buy with respect to dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
(" Public Local Inquiry.

(1) Where a local authority intends to sell, transfer, or devolve management of land held for housing purposes which is subject to an existing tenancy or tenancies, to another person or body, and where objection in writing has been registered by no less than one third of the holders of such tenancies, the Secretary of State shall cause to be held a public local enquiry.

(2) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (giving of evidence at inquiries) shall apply to such a public local inquiry.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to an amendment similar to one which we have spoken to on a previous occasion—the tenants' right to a public local inquiry. I am encouraged to bring this amendment forward because of what the Minister said on Report in answer to my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, as reported in Hansard. He said:
"I am perfectly prepared to look into the whole subject again totally without commitment, because I know it is a subject on which noble Lords opposite have been exercising their minds."—[Official Report, 22/10/86; cols. 320–1.]
We have changed the amendment so that it is now a modest amendment. We ask that an inquiry should Occur,
"Where a local authority intends to sell, transfer, or devolve management of land held for housing purposes which is subject to an existing tenancy or tenancies, to another person or body, and where"
and this is where we have changed the amendment—
"objection in writing has been registered by no less than one third of the holders of such tenancies, the Secretary of State shall cause to be held a public local inquiry."
As I said, this is a modest amendment. We have introduced it because we are not happy about the degree of protection which tenants have in law when such schemes are proposed for their homes.
The first reason for our amendment is that the Government's proposals for a tenants' right of veto are very limited in scope. They do not provide for tenants to have a real say in decisions which are being taken about the future of their homes. As the Minister said in Committee on 9th October (at col. 392 of Hansard), Clauses 6 and 10 merely require that
620
tenants are consulted about one option presented by their local authority land Lord for the handover of their homes to the private sector. Without discussion about alternative options, a majority of tenants may accept this option by default—a decision they may well later regret.
Under the Government's proposals, tenants could easily find themselves conscripted into, not volunteering for, schemes of the kind that the Government wish to encourage under Clauses 6 and 10 of the Bill. Clearly that might not be in the tenants' best interests, or in the interests of the private sector. That is the first reason for our amendment, which would ensure that where a substantial minority of tenants object to such a scheme they would have the right to demand a public inquiry into such proposals.
The second reason for our amendment is that the Government's proposals fail to provide any protection for tenants in most cases where it is proposed to dispose of their homes to the private sector, for redevelopment or refurbishment for sale. These cases will be far more common than those involving the handover of tenants' homes to a private sector manager or landlord, where the right of veto would apply. In such instances, a right of public inquiry may be even more important because tenants may be directly threatened with the loss of their homes as a result of such a scheme.
The Minister suggested on Report that tenants could not be deprived of their homes, but I do not think that is correct. He is reported in Hansard on 22nd October, at the bottom of col. 318, as saying:
"We are not talking about tenants losing their homes. They will continue to live in the same house, but with a different landlord."
We referred on Report to one such scheme where the tenants did lose their homes—the disposal of tenants' homes against their wishes on the Waterlow estate at Bethnal Green for refurbishment and sale by Barratt. The Minister said (at col. 322 of Hansard) that tenants on the Waterlow estate would have had the right of veto on the disposal of their homes if the Bill had been law and the schemes had been approved. That is not the case. The disposal was to a developer to refurbish tenants' homes for sale, as a result of which they have been threatened with eviction. It was not a disposal with sitting tenants to a private landlord.
Our amendment would ensure that tenants threatened with compulsory disposal of the homes in such circumstances would have the right to demand a public local inquiry into their landlord's proposals, just as owner-occupiers would have a similar right where their local authority threatened compulsorily to acquire their homes for a redevelopment scheme.
The Waterlow case is important because it shows that tenants' existing rights of consultation are inadequate in relation to such disposals. Tenants were unable to get their land Lord to consult with them until they took court action. They were also unable to persuade the council seriously to consider alternative options that they put forward for the refurbishment of their homes for rent. They were unable to obtain straight answers to questions they asked about the justification for the council's proposals. If they had had a right to demand a public local inquiry—more than a third of the tenants affected did object to the

621
disposal—tenants could have ensured proper discussion about the implications of the disposal.
People are truly worried about what could happen to their homes under this Bill. In this amendment we are asking for a public inquiry only after one-third of the tenants have objected to proposals in writing. Is not that a fair and proper way of dealing with this situation? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, when I say that I am going to consider something, I believe it is only right to do just that. I equally believe that it is only right that I should now review the arguments of my consideration in some detail.
Let us take the case where a tenanted council estate is to be sold to a private developer. Let us consider what is going to happen under the provisions in the Bill when such a proposal is at issue. Suppose the local authority identifies an estate as one in which there is potential private sector interest—perhaps an estate which is in need of substantial refurbishment but is not at the top of the authority's own list of priorities. Suppose that the local authority also identifies a developer who is willing to consider purchase and renovation with most or all of the properties subject to sitting tenancies.
At the moment, when the local authority and the developer start discussing the terms of the disposal, what is the single most important fact they must bear in mind? It is surely the fact that the disposal cannot go ahead if a majority of the tenants concerned object to the proposal. It is not a question of the Secretary of State merely being influenced one way or the other by the opinion of the majority. If he is satisfied that a majority of the tenants object to the proposal then the Bill expressly provides that,
"he shall not give his consent".
I am not sure that the noble Baroness has yet taken on board either the novelty or the importance of that provision. It will colour everything else that happens between the local authority, the tenants and the developer. It will affect all subsequent negotiations. Some things of course will not be negotiable—in particular, the tenants' security of tenure, and their right to buy. These must be and are preserved. Any purchaser who cannot accept those conditions is not going to be interested; and therefore such a proposal will not even get to the tenants.
But around those fixed points there are other areas which will be negotiable the price; the nature and phasing of the works to be carried out; and the detailed position of the tenants on matters other than security and the right to buy. The detailed discussion of the scheme will, it is hoped, result in a package being agreed which is acceptable to all three parties. But in the last analysis, if the local authority and the developer cannot carry a majority of the tenants with them, the scheme will not get off the ground.
What does Schedule 1 say about exactly how the consultations are to be carried out? It requires the local authority to give each tenant affected, in writing, details of the proposed disposal, including the identity of the prospective purchaser; details of the likely
622
consequences for the tenant; and details of the preserved right to buy. The local authority must also give the tenant a reasonable time in which to make his views known on the proposal. The schedule also requires that, after initial consultations are over, the local authority must tell tenants of any changes they have made to their proposals in the light of representations before submitting them to the Secretary of State, and the local authority must then tell tenants that they have at least 28 days in which to lodge any remaining objections direct with the Secretary of State.
Furthermore, the schedule provides that the local authority must send the Secretary of State copies of the papers sent to the tenants as the basis for consultation. This will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that tenants have been given adequate information on which to base their reactions to the scheme. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that sufficient details have been given, or sufficient time allowed, he will have the power to require the local authority to carry out such further consultations as he considers necessary. In those circumstances he will be able to say just how much further consultation should be carried out: for instance, by meetings with the tenants, by circulation of a questionnaire, or by other means, including written representations. I suggest to the House that those are pretty comprehensive requirements. The Secretary of State is going to be in a position to insist that adequate information is given, and adequate time allowed for comments.
I now turn to the specific question raised by this amendment: why not provide for a public inquiry where there is significant opposition to a proposal for privatisation or management delegation? I have considered this question again, but I remain totally unconvinced of the need for a provision in the form of this amendment. This whole subject is about negotiations between the people directly involved: first, the council who must have decided to propose a sale of the property; then the prospective purchasers who must be interested in the scheme; and, finally and most importantly, the tenants themselves. In this situation a public inquiry which by definition gives the opportunity for people not directly involved to have points considered is simply not appropriate.
We all know that public inquiries have their uses, but I think we would all agree that they are not the most swift, flexible and cheap administrative mechanisms. I think it will be clear from what I have already said that what we are talking about here is a process of consultation between local authority, purchaser and the tenants affected, which must be close and continuous if it is to be successful. I honestly believe that the consultation provisions that we have in the Bill are more likely to be appropriate to that sort of process than are the relatively rigid and formal provisions which govern public inquiries. Consultations are bound to be necessary if a sensible proposal is to be set up in the first place. If they are successful, why impose on that process the additional requirement of a public inquiry? And as this amendment is drafted it would be a requirement if a specified proportion of tenants registered objections to the scheme.
We have heard on several occasions that the interests of people other than the tenants directly

623
affected should be considered, but it must surely be right that those tenants who are actually living in the properties in question, many of which may be in need of substantial repair and improvement, should be the ones to say whether a particular proposal should proceed. In formulating its proposals the council will obviously have regard to such wider interests as the housing needs in its area.
I am saying that I do not think it is sensible to write into this Bill a formal requirement that the Secretary of State shall hold a public inquiry in certain circumstances. That would be inflexible and could damage the prospects of success. The knowledge that they could be faced with delays of months or even longer might well put off potential purchasers.
However, I do not deny that there may be circumstances in which a local inquiry might be the best way of sounding out opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, asked me last week whether there should not be a discretionary power to hold an inquiry where appropriate. Section 616 of the Housing Act 1985 states:
"for the purposes of the execution of his powers and duties under this Act, the Secretary of State may cause such local inquiries to be held as he may think fit".
The consultation provisions in the present Bill are of course to be inserted in' the 1985 Act, so Section 616 will be there if it is appropriate to use it.
I believe that this is as far as we should go. The circumstances in which inquiries will be appropriate are likely to be very rare indeed. The discretionary provision will allow for that. Anything further than that, along the lines of the present amendment, introduces a degree of rigidity which in my view is simply not appropriate to the matter under consideration. In this connection it is, I think, important to remember that the consultation arrangements must cover all schemes involving tenanted council houses, both big and small. It would hardly be appropriate to insist on public inquiries being held, for instance, where only two or three tenanted dwellings would be affected.
I committed myself to look at the whole subject again. This I have done, but I have to say that my conclusions remain the same. The provision we are making in this Bill for consultation with tenants affected by privatisation or management delegation proposals are very substantial indeed. The Secretary of State will have a direct role in ensuring that consultations are adequate, and if, after consultation, a majority remain opposed to a scheme, it will not be open to the Secretary of State to ignore that.
Before a private land Lord can require a tenant to move he must apply to the court for a possession order. That is a quite different matter from the question of whether a council should sell tenanted properties to a private landlord. In such a case the tenants will have security of tenure under the Rent Act. I believe therefore that what we have in the Bill is as far as we can reasonably go. As I have said, the Secretary of State does have a general discretion to hold public inquiries, and that will be available here; but to go beyond that and to write into the Bill, as this amendment would, a requirement for a local inquiry
624
would be inflexible and indeed often superfluous, given the consultations that will have already taken place.
In the light of that, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the detailed reply of the Minister, for which we are very grateful. In particular, I was listening for the point which many of us raised before at Committee stage about cases where the council decides to sell to a developer for refurbishment and further sale; and we have been given some examples of cases by Shelter in recent weeks.
The Bill concentrates on disposal to a private sector landlord. Nowhere does it mention the case of flats that will be turned over to a private developer for refurbishment and future sale. Two examples were given, one being the Skimped Hill estate in Bracknell and the other Portsdown Park estate in Portsmouth, neither of which would be covered by the provisions, as they exist in this Bill, so far as concerns consultation, because the Bill does not deal with that circumstance; it only deals with the case in which a council intends to dispose of dwellings to a private sector landlord. There is a difference which the noble Lord has not cleared up in the way I had hoped he would, and I hope that he will have another look at that specific point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking to this amendment. However, the Minister's case related solely to the protection given to tenants by the consultation procedure as found in the provisions in Schedule 1. Amendment No. 19, which has been put down in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and myself relates to Schedule 1. I shall not speak for very long because I shall make the majority of my remarks on that amendment, but the fact of the matter is that once again the Minister read out the same reasons that he gave in Committee and at Report stage and repeated almost verbatim the protection that the tenant has in the consultation procedure. However the actual kick in Schedule 1 is contained in the last paragraph, which reads:
"Protection of purchasers
The Secretary of State's consent to a disposal is not invalidated by a failure on his part or that of the local authority to comply with the requirements of the Schedule".
I do not for one moment suppose that any Secretary of State would do so, but he could really afford to ignore the whole of Schedule 1 on the basis of this escape clause. Bearing in mind that that could happen, does the Minister think that the tenants have the protection that he says they have? We could have a situation in which the local authority could default and it has the protection of the Secretary of State: if, however, the Secretary of State defaults—not through any action of his own but because of a departmental slip—who then protects the tenant? There is the right to protect the purchaser but nowhere does the schedule protect the tenant. Based on the remarks I have made, I do not think that the Minister has made

625
out any case at all for this schedule, which is totally loaded against the existing tenant.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that was not the case we were considering. When we reach the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, proposes in Amendment No. 4—unless he wants to deal with the point now, which I am prepared to do—we can consider the workings of Schedule 1. This amendment is directed to those cases where the noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to insert into the statute a public local inquiry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The overwhelming part of the Minister's case, when he was trying to convince your Lordships that there was no necessity for a public inquiry, consisted of trying to hide behind or use the provisions of Schedule 1. That is why I intervened.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that that was an intervention and that I need not ask the leave of the House to speak again. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, the consultation provisions in Clause 6 relate to sales of tenanted properties to any private sector purchaser. In such a case tenants will have the preserved right to buy, security of tenure and such other rights as are protected by agreement with the developer. The question of on-sale by the developer of tenanted properties is irrelevant. Tenants will retain their rights, including security of tenure.
I have reconsidered this matter. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like my conclusions because they are the same as the ones I came to before. That does not mean that I have not given the matter a great deal of thought.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reconsidering the matter. I think he does me an injustice. I know what is in the schedule. We have been living solidly with this Bill for three weeks now, and I have read the schedule a good many times. I still find myself dissatisfied with it.
If a majority of tenants object, the scheme will not continue. We are thinking of a substantial minority—one third—of the tenants involved who do not like the scheme and who perhaps have not had the chance to make their feelings properly known and to have them taken into account. We are concerned with people's rights, especially rights which have to do with homes. We do not see why private owners should have the right to go to an inquiry if their homes are to be compulsorily purchased and they risk losing them, whereas public sector tenants will not have that right unless we have this public inquiry clause written into the Bill.
I am not satisfied with the answer. I wish to press the amendment.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bernstein, L.

McNair, L.

Beswick, L.

Mais, L.

Birk, B.

Mar, C.

Blyton, L.

Milford, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brockway, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfield, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Oram, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Collison, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Davies, L.

Reilly, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rugby, L.

Denington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Devonshire, D.

Seear, B.

Diamond, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Serota, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shackleton, L.

Ennals, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Ezra, L.

Simon, V.

Falkender, B.

Stallard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Fitt. L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strauss, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Vernon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allerton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alport, L.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cayzer, L.

Auckland, L.

Chelmer, L.

Bancroft, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bauer, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Beloff, L.

Croft, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blake, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blanch, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Denning, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Effingham, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Byron, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mersey, V.

Gainford, L.

Milverton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Molson, L.

Glanusk, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Gorell, L.

Monson, L.

Gray, L.

Morris, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gridley, L.

Munster, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pender, L.

Hayter, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Porritt, L.

Hesketh, L.

Portland, D.

Hives, L.

Quinton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rodney, L.

Ilchester, E.

St. Davids, V.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Ironside, L.

Sandys, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sharples, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Layton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vickers, B.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Wise, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Foreign Affairs Council
4.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council on 27th October being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which I chaired on 27th October. The Minister for Trade represented the United Kingdom.
"The council approved the Commission's intention to launch immediate action in the GATT with a view to securing rapid removal of Japanese discriminatory barriers to imports of alcoholic drinks. The council also decided to keep under close review the conditions under which Japanese products are exported to the EC. The council welcomed the agreement with the United States settling the outstanding trade dispute over citrus fruit and pasta.
628
"The council also discussed briefly the negotiations with the United States about the trade effects of enlargement, the proposals for the 1987 generalised scheme of preferences and recent Canadian trade measures. Agreement was reached on new community programmes in the fields of energy and telecommunications. These include allocations of £29 million to Northern Ireland.
"The council welcomed the recent agreement on a revised Community mandate for the negotiations with Mediterranean countries on the maintenance of their trade access to the Community following the accession of Spain and Portugal. The council considered its reaction to the expressed wish of Comecon to enter into official relations with the Community as well as possible bilateral agreements with Romania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. It confirmed the importance of mutually beneficial commercial and economic links with Eastern European countries.
"The council reached agreement on the implementation of a Community-wide ban on imports of gold coins from South Africa. The member states also adopted a decision suspending new investment in South Africa by firms and individuals in the Community. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be announcing shortly details of how this measure will be implemented.
"The council approved proposals to grant the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza preferential access to the Community market and agreed to establish a fresh aid programme for those territories. These proposals will bring practical help to those living in the occupied territories. They were the result of a British initiative. They underline our continuing commitment to the search for peace in the region.
"I gave my Community colleagues a full briefing on the Hindawi case and presented them with the conclusive evidence of Syrian official involvement. They were both impressed and disturbed. The Greek representative could not associate himself with any measures or statement against Syria or the Syrian Government. With that sole exception, all Ministers expressed their collective sense of outrage that the agencies of a state had been involved in such an incident, and they expressed full understanding and support for the action which we had taken. They undertook that no partner would accept as a diplomat any of the Syrians who had been expelled from London in connection with this case.
"We instructed the Political Committee to meet on 6th November to continue this discussion. By that date, ambassadors in Damascus will have presented the Syrian Government with the evidence of what has taken place and will have reported back. We have agreed to consider at the next ministerial meeting in London on 10th November the possibility of action in relation to arms sales to Syria, high level visits to and from Syria, the activities of Syrian embassies in the member states, and security arrangements affecting the operations of Syrian Arab Airlines.

629
"Yesterday's proceedings went some way—but by no means as far as the House would have wished—to send the Syrian Government a clear message that their behaviour has been intolerable.
"Finally, Syria is one of the countries for which the Community's Mediterranean financial protocols expire next Saturday. Renewal requires unanimity. There can be no question of the United Kingdom agreeing to further financial assistance for Syria in present circumstances."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which deals with a number of important matters. Our immediate attention is naturally concentrated upon Syrian official involvement in the Hindawi case. The word "official" is used in the Statement. Can the noble Baroness say what is the conclusive evidence against the Syrian Government that is mentioned in the Statement? Are we to assume that the word "official" refers not only to the Syrian embassy in London but also to the Syrian Government? We support the Government in their total condemnation of the act. We support the Government in their action and their attitude generally. It would help, however, if the facts were reiterated and made plain by the noble Baroness.
Furthermore, do our EC partners accept the evidence referred to in the Statement as conclusive? Was the evidence discussed in detail at the meeting? Did the Foreign Ministers of the 11 agree that the evidence was in fact incontrovertible? We note the reaction of many of our EC partners. We are disappointed that they are unable to accept the Government's proposals in full. We are glad nonetheless that there are to be further deliberations on 10th November. We hope that more progress will then be made in the direction of positive and effective action. Can the noble Baroness say whether there is reason to hope that this will be the case after the meeting on 10th November?
Can the noble Baroness further confirm that trade considerations are the main obstacles to full agreement and a united stand against terrorism? Can she say, firstly, what is the total arms trade between EC countries and Syria and, secondly, what is the current level of EC aid to Syria? How will the expiry of the financial protocols affect aid generally from EC countries to Syria? It would help the House if the noble Baroness could say what steps the United States Administration are proposing to take in the matter. We have noted from newspaper reports the current views of the United States Administration. It would help if we knew what steps they might have in mind as well.
Can the noble Baroness say, finally, on this point how many international terrorist organisations have their headquarters in Damascus or elsewhere in Syria, and whether it is true that Syria is in practice a bigger menace in the field of terrorism than is Libya? We note with approval from the Statement read by the noble Baroness the closer relationship which may become possible with Comecon. However, having said that, what official representations do the Government propose to make to the Soviet Union, an ally of Syria,
630
about that country's harbouring of terrorists and the effect upon the international community?
We note with interest the other matters mentioned in the Statement. I regret that, owing to the importance of that one matter I have just discussed, it is not possible to go into details on these other issues but perhaps we shall be able to deal with them in our Foreign Affairs debate which will take place in due course following the Gracious Speech. However, I should like to refer to the Japanese Government's barriers to imports which are mentioned in the Statement. From my own experience these are quite indefensible. Apart from the close review which is mentioned in the Statement, what positive action are we and our partners in the EC going to take against the Japanese in order to remove this inequitable situation that exists?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, may I ask whether she is aware that we welcome the decision of the Government to take action in respect of Syria in relation to the Community's Mediterranean financial protocols. Perhaps I may raise two specific questions. Is the noble Baroness aware that we very much hope that the next ministerial meeting with our Community partners in London next month will be rather more satisfactory than the last? Is she aware in respect of our relationship with our colleagues in Europe that there is some need to avoid self-righteousness in this matter? Is the noble Baroness aware that we hesitated for a very long time before we took action against the terrorists who were working from the Libyan People's Bureau in St. James's Square? Is she aware that the only reason we ultimately did so was because of the lamentable murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher? Is the noble Baroness aware that a number of us raised the need for more vigorous action in respect of the Libyans on a number of occasions and got precisely nowhere until that murder occurred?
Is the noble Baroness aware that it is necessary to try to carry our European colleagues with us? Some of them have problems. For instance, the French have hostages who have been taken in Beirut and presumably they have to have periodic contact with the Syrian authorities in respect of the lives of those hostages. Is she aware, nowithstanding that, that we very much hope we shall get a more satisfactory meeting with our European colleagues next month?
May I turn to one specific question which a number of us raised after the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher because exactly the same issue has been raised in relation to the behaviour of the Syrians? That is the use of diplomatic bags. Is the noble Baroness aware that a number of us asked for far more vigorous steps to be taken on this issue on the last occasion? Is she aware that once again we have clear evidence that diplomatic bags have been used to bring explosives and firearms into this country? What action will now be taken? We cannot afford to waste more time and risk more lives in the future, both in this country and elsewhere, simply because of some hesitation on our part about bringing in more stringent requirements regarding these matters.
Lastly, may I ask the noble Baroness about the position of Syrian Arab Airlines, a well-known front

631
organisation for terrorists? Is she aware that, as I understand it, the Syrian Government have themselves decided not to have any further flights to London? May I ask the noble Baroness this question. If the Syrian Government change their position on that matter shall we allow such flights to take place or not?
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, first, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their reception of this Statement, and for their support for the action which the Government have taken with regard to Syria. I have been asked a number of quite specific questions by both noble Lords. I shall see whether I can give them answers to all the matters that they have raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked this very important question about what evidence we gave to our Community partners to indicate Syrian involvement. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we gave conclusive evidence of Syrian involvement with Hindawi, and that the Syrian claim that they thought he was no more than a bona fide journalist was, frankly, incredible. Why give him a passport in a false name? But perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the Statement that was made on 24th October by my right honourable and learned friend in another place in which he listed the evidence that we gave which was produced in the trial: that hotel accommodation was reserved for the Syrian Arab Airline crew; that Hindawi spent the night after the bombing attempt in the Syrian Embassy accommodation where his hair clippings and hair dye were found.
These certain facts are undisputed: that Hindawi travelled on an official Syrian passport in a false name; his visa applications on two occasions were backed by official notes from the Syrian Foreign Ministry; and he met the Syrian ambassador, Dr. Haydar, in his embassy, after the discovery of the bomb. In addition, we have independent evidence that the Syrian ambassador was personally involved several months before the commission of the offence in securing for Hindawi the sponsorship of the Syrian intelligence authorities; and we have equally compelling evidence that during his detention Hindawi sought to contact secretly Syrian intelligence officials in Damascus with a request for their assistance in securing his release. I think that this is quite clear evidence on that point and I am glad to confirm it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, went on to ask whether our Community partners accept as evidence that this is conclusive. Perhaps I may say that on that matter all our partners—except for Greece—shared our outrage at the Syrian involvement and expressed their understanding and support for our action. With regard to the Greeks, our view is that we fail to understand their inability to accept this compelling evidence of Syrian involvement with Hindawi. It is even more surprising in view of the recent terrorist incidents in Athens, including of course the unhappy murder of Mr. Whitty, the British Council employee.
632
This surely demonstrates that appeasement of terrorism does not pay.
The noble Lord went on to ask what we expect to come out of the next meeting of the Community Foreign Ministers, which will take place on 10th November. We very much hope that. when our partners have had time to reflect on the evidence and the implications of the case, we shall reach agreement on the proposals we have made. I know that my right honourable and learned friend is looking for agreement on that date. At the same time, of course, we have indicated our firm intention to back up our statements, as witnessed by the withdrawal of our financial support for Syria from the Community.
The noble Lord also asked me a number of questions on Community aid to Syria and in particular on arms. Perhaps I may answer the question on arms first. No figures are available for the Community's arms exports. Our own defence sales exports were approximately £13 million since 1984, and our partners have agreed to review their arms sales on 10th November. On the question of our general assistance to Syria, as the Statement made clear, the present Financial Protocol expires at the end of this month. It is worth £43 million and £22 million in budgetary aid. That of course will not be renewed. The Commission was expected to bring forward a proposal for both loans, and budgetary aid to Syria expected to amount to about £100 million over five years, and that requires agreement. We have of course indicated our position on that.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that the United States has agreed to withdraw its ambassador from Syria, which sends the right signal to the Syrian Government. So far as concerns the Soviet Union, we have made strong representations in both London and Moscow, particularly because the Soviet media in its support for Syria is totally inconsistent with the professed Soviet opposition to terrorism.
There was one last point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised concerning Japanese trade barriers. The noble Lord asked what, if anything, we had been prepared to do about the situation. I think, as the Statement made clear, we feel we have no alternative but to take the Japanese action to the GATT, which is fully in accordance with the European Community's international trading obligations.
I think that there were two specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which I have not covered in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Perhaps I may just say as a general point that I do not think we feel in any sense self-righteous about this. It is a terribly serious situation. The government have acted responsibly and swiftly to deal with this very difficult situation. I think we have been a leader of other countries in Europe in an effort to get international co-operation to deal with the situation.
On the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised, the first of which was whether we are taking sufficiently vigorous action, I think the evidence that we have taken action is quite clear, and we have made this plain to our Community partners. It is also worth remembering that we also have hostages in Lebanon. Therefore, it is a very difficult policy for us to pursue.

633
Concerning the question of diplomatic bags, which was the second point the noble Lord raised, this is something which we are looking at actively. It is a subject of concern. However, there is no evidence that diplomatic bags were used in the Hindawi case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's reference to the review of arms sales from the Community to Syria being reviewed on 10th November cover the suggestion fairly widely stated in the press that the French certainly were contemplating major arms sales to Syria? Was it made clear to the French that if there was anything in that it would be a most serious matter? Is it covered by her statement that all this is to be considered, I hope firmly, on 10th November?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am able to give my noble friend that assurance. This was one of the matters discussed in a very lengthy meeting. It is clearly one of the issues to which my right honourable and learned friend will be returning at the meeting on 10th November.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will continue to press the matter of the diplomatic bags. It is a very long time now since this was discovered. I think I remember reading, perhaps not in this specific case, that the Syrian airlines had been widely used for the import of arms and explosives. Surely there is nothing against X-raying a diplomatic bag. It is the papers which are valuable and secret. If there are arms in those bags they will be very quickly shown up. Surely this is a matter which could be pressed with the EC as well so that we can universally take action against those countries which are harbouring and training terrorists. There are people who say that the actions which the EC and ourselves have already agreed, and the further actions which we hope May be agreed on 10th November, are anti-Arab. Can my noble friend say what possible evidence there is in any way to support that?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can certainly given an assurance to my noble friend that as I indicated earlier, we are looking actively at the whole question of diplomatic bags. I have noted the important point that he made.
Concerning the second point that he raises, I am glad to confirm that our action is in no sense anti-Arab. We believe our Arab friends well understand our reasons for breaking relations with Syria. As the Statement makes clear, the Community has just adopted on a British initiative a programme of aid and preferential access to the Community for the West Bank and for Gaza.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Baroness emphasises the fact that our other partners, apart from Greece, sympathised and agreed with the action which we had taken. Perhaps she can say whether anything was said as to why they were unable to follow the action that we had taken? Also, was there any consultation at all between our Government and the other partners before the action was taken by the United Kingdom?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think it is very important to recognise in what has been said that we believe that we have made useful progress. Except for Greece, all the partners share our sense of outrage at the Syrian involvement. As I indicated, they expressed their understanding for the action we have taken. It was clear that all the partners were prepared to take further action. However, in order to get all 11 countries to agree on the same action, there will need to be further discussion.
Our partners yesterday agreed the following: not to accept as diplomats those expelled from the United Kingdom in connection with the Hindawi case; that Community ambassadors should present evidence to the Syrian Government and report in time for discussion by the political committee on 6th November and by Foreign Ministers on 10th November; and that they would then consider further action on arms sales, as I indicated to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, high level visits, activities of Syrian embassies and security in regard to the Syrian airline operation. There are a number of very important matters still to be discussed and we hope that agreement Will be reached at this further meeting.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not answer the question that I put to her about consultation between this country and our partners before any announcement was made as to our action.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are in close contact with our Community partners. We made our announcements as to what we would do following upon the result of the court case last Friday. It has been clear over the weekend the action that we have taken. I think it is important to understand that progress was made yesterday—not as much progress as we might have wished, but nevertheless progress was made. My right honourable and learned friend wishes to come back at the next meeting on these other matters, which I recognise—as does the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and other noble Lords—are issues that are extremely important and on which it will be important to reach agreement for common action.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can assure the House that it was made clear by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that common action against terrorism is regarded by many people in this country as a litmus test of the validity of the Community's commitment to act together. In that connection is it true, as is reported in the press today, that the Greek Foreign Minister went so far as to say that he did not believe the evidence presented by the British Foreign Secretary or the conclusion of a British court of justice? As this is not the first time by any means that Greece has taken up a stand hostile to the interests of this country and her allies, ought not the question of the status of Greece in the Community be looked at very seriously?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there have been a number of earlier European Community statements on terrorism. We have not been asking anything of our partners which has not already been agreed in principle in these statements. I should like to draw the attention of the House to them.

635
In Dublin in 1984 it was agreed that if one partner suffers a serious terrorist attack involving the abuse of diplomatic immunity, partners will be ready to consider common action in response. On 27th January 1986 the Community agreed that states that favour or protect terrorists cannot expect normal relations with the Twelve. Again, at the same time, there was a decision not to export arms or other military equipment to countries which are clearly implicated in supporting terrorism.
They intensified their common action to improve their own defences against terrorism and discourage those who support it in the following areas: security at airports, ports, railway stations; frontier controls; visa policies; and the abuse of diplomatic immunity. All those policies have been agreed by all the Twelve countries of the Community. We hope therefore that the Greek Government will agree to act in conjunction with the others at the next meeting on 10th November, because they have of course already in principle accepted the need for international action against terrorism.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, on the question of timing, it was essential (was it not?) that the judicial process at the Old Bailey, conducted in accordance with the highest principles of British justice, should have been completed and a decision arrived at before the Government could take action?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is quite proper that the noble and learned Lord should make that point to the House, because of course we had to wait until the conclusion of the case before we could take action; and that was why the Statement was made when it was.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that inadvertently there was one point with which she did not deal; namely, the position of Syrian Arab Airlines? Is she aware that, as I understand the situation, the Syrians themselves have decided to suspend flights to London? The question which I asked was this. Assuming that that decision is changed, are we prepared to allow what is, in fact, an airline used for terrorist purposes throughout Western Europe to start flights again to London?
Secondly, is the noble Baroness aware that many of us find the Government's hesitation on the question of diplomatic bags almost incomprehensible? Is the noble Baroness aware that there was the clearest evidence in relation to Libya that those bags were used for that purpose? Is the noble Baroness aware that "the need for further consideration", and all the other phrases which have been used to explain total inaction on this question for a period of many months, is, I repeat, incomprehensible to many of us?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's last point, obviously I take note of what he has said and I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend. I apologise to the noble Lord for not answering his question about the Syrian Arab Airlines. The Syrians have themselves ended Syrian airline flights to London. The noble Lord asked
636
me what we would do if they decided to reinstate those flights. I think that that would clearly be a matter which we would have to consider very carefully, as, indeed, we are considering urgently the action that we should be taking about flights to Syria.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am not clear about the effect of the answer which the noble Baroness gave to her noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Is it the fact that at present the French Government are contemplating a considerable sale of arms to Syria, that the British Government have made it clear that we should deplore that, but that we do not yet know what the French decision will be?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that no decision has been taken by the Twelve on arms sales. I assured my noble friend, as I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that this is clearly a matter to which we attach the greatest importance. It is a matter on which we wish to obtain Community co-operation to stop arms sales to Syria in these circumstances, and that is clearly something which will be high on the agenda at the meeting on 10th November.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness this question. Has it been the intention of the French Government to make a sale of arms to Syria, and how does that matter stand now?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding of the position is that there are arms sales in prospect, but the important point is the decision, which we hope will be made by all our Community partners at the next meeting, to ban arms sales.

Housing and Planning Bill
4.35 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 7 [Certificate of fair rent with a view to disposal by public sector body]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 14, line 26, after first ("a") insert ("tenanted").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to clarify the position with regard to a confusion which has arisen on the Government's new clause concerning,
"Certificate of fair rent with a view to disposal by public sector body".
That was Amendment No. 27 at Committee stage, and the discussion is reported in cols. 204 to 207 of Hansard on 7th October.
The Minister was good enough to write to me to help to clarify my mind and the position about the new clause. In his letter he stated that this amendment was intended to cover disposal of local authority tenanted accommodation. He said:
"The first point I would like to make clear is that it is in no way related to our proposals elsewhere in the Bill to extend the assured tenancy scheme. The assured tenancy proposals are confined to the improvement, conversion repair and subsequent letting of empty property by approved landlords".

637
However, we are not convinced that the amended Bill does not apply also to vacant accommodation. Our amendment would specifically prevent application to vacant property.
We would welcome an assurance from the Minister that our amendment is not necessary. If, as we fear, the position is that vacant accommodation is covered by the Bill as amended, then I have to tell the Minister that we do not like it. The point is this: a body considering purchase of a local authority dwelling which is vacant will wish to know what rent can be recouped at fair rent levels, simply as a means of making calculations with a view to determining a tender price. It may then consider that the rent level will be too low in relation to the cost of finance for the scheme. Although the Government's addition to the Bill will not of itself assist transfer to assured tenancies, it may well he used during that process. We seek to close that option.
I remind the Minister that during the Committee stage in another place my honourable friend Mr. Rooker pledged the Opposition to withdraw approved body status from any landlord where public sector dwellings found their way into assured tenancy. The Minister, Mr. John Patten, responded:
"The honourable Gentleman is right. We should monitor the transfers and we shall build that into next year's monitoring exercise, the results being made publicly available".
A little later he went on to say:
"We have not thought of monitoring and we should have done. I give an assurance that we shall build it into the monitoring exercise".
We want to have the position clarified, and perhaps the Minister will he able to say something about the monitoring that the Government intend to do. Our amendment just seeks to have the matter clarified. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, but this amendment would achieve the very opposite of what the noble Baroness has said she would like to see in the Bill. Clause 7 as it now stands enables a local authority to apply to the rent officer for certificates of fair rent in respect of residential properties of which they intend to dispose. We envisage that they will mainly make use of it where they are disposing of tenanted property to another landlord, who will then go on letting it under a regulated tenancy on a registered fair rent—in other words, exactly the circumstances that the noble Baroness quoted from my letter to her of 13th October.
However, it could well be that there will be cases where the disposal consists of a mixture of tenanted and vacant stock—the disposal of a partly tenanted block of flats is an obvious example. In those circumstances I cannot see that it makes sense to enable the local authority to obtain a certificate of fair rent in respect only of the properties which happen to be tenanted, which is what the amendment provides. It would mean that the potential purchaser would be unable to obtain an indication of the fair rent he would he permitted to charge if he relet the vacant property on a regulated tenancy. It would therefore make it less likely that he would be prepared to relet it on a regulated tenancy at a fair rent. He might be persuaded instead to sell the vacant property for owner
638
occupation, or refurbish it for reletting on an assured tenancy.
I am not sure that the noble Baroness intended to put obstacles in the way of landlords wishing to let on regulated tenancies at fair rents, but I must tell her that this is what her amendment would achieve. I should also add that neither is it unfair to people under this situation compared with people where their houses were in the private sector all along. It is clear that where the properly is vacant there is obviously no tenant to put forward an alternative to the landlord's case when the certificate for fair rent application is considered by the rent officer. But equally that has always been the case under the certificate for fair rent procedure, and it has not worked to the detriment of tenants. The incoming tenant will know from the certificate of fair rent what rent the landlord will be permitted to charge, and no doubt this will be a factor in his or her decision to refuse or accept the tenancy.
Clause 7 has nothing to do with assured tenancies. Dwellings let on assured tenancies are at market rents and not fair rents, so the point that the noble Baroness made on monitoring does not arise on this particular subject.
I hope in view of what I have said that the noble Baroness will be satisfied that what we intend to do is not only what we have done, but what it is right to do and that therefore she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Reading the next few lines in his letter he says:
"The situation we were dealing with in Amendment 27 is where a local authority is considering disposing of tenanted property".
But now it appears that it is a mixture of tenanted and vacant property. I hope that this discussion will have made a little clearer what is intended by the clause, and having had that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Management agreements]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 4, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that we are taking Amendments Nos. 4 and 19 together because basically the same principle is involved. There was some reference to Schedule 1 earlier in the proceedings. Schedule 1 and Clause 10 provide a procedure for consultation with tenants before the Secretary of State can approve a scheme involving the handover of their council homes to a private sector manager or landlord. They also provide that the Secretary of State's approval, once given, shall not be invalidated even if he has not observed these consultation procedures. Surely this undermines the Government's purpose in this schedule and clause, which is to ensure that council homes cannot be handed over to the private sector if the tenants affected have not been fully consulted or if their views have not been properly taken into account by the Secretary of State in approving the scheme.
In a letter dated 21st October to my Front Bench friend and colleague Lady David the Minister denied

639
that that was the case and made two points. First, he said that these provisions would not deprive tenants of legal redress if the consultation procedures had not been followed. The provisions would allow tenants to seek redress for the effects of the Secretary of State's decision and action in damages, but they would not allow the decision itself to be challenged on matters of fact if it had been taken without proper consultation. So the paragraph would seem to preclude effective redress for tenants if their views had been mistaken by the Secretary of State in approving such a scheme.
Secondly, the Minister claimed that the Government are concerned merely to protect the interests of purchasers, not to undermine the consultation process. But these two paragraphs surely go further than is necessary to protect purchasers' interests. They protect not only the purchaser but also the Secretary of State from challenge by tenants if approval has been given to a scheme without the proper consultation. These two paragraphs appear to set an undesirable constitutional precedent for future legislation in the degree to which they exempt the executive from judicial challenge, and that is why we wish to delete them both from the Bill.
In introducing these amendments I referred to the brief exchanges we had previously. It is a fact that the Bill caters solely for the purchaser and the other party involved, but there is no protection whatsoever enshrined in this Bill for the tenants if the Secretary of State fails by accident, or his department defaults, other than by recourse to common law by the individual tenants involved. Anybody who has had dealings with council house tenants knows that the mere mention of the court will frighten to death the overwhelming majority of them, and I do not believe they would pursue such a course.
I think this is the last time that your Lordships' House will have a chance to indicate concern for the protection of individual tenants and their traditional security of tenure in the houses that some of them have occupied for years. On that basis I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, although this is the first time that these particular amendments have been proposed, this subject has been raised on several occasions in our discussions on the Bill. We have therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, covered this ground before and I am well aware of the suspicion with which paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 and new Section 27A(7), which is inserted by Clause 10, are viewed by some of the noble Lords opposite. But, as I have said before, there is nothing devious about these provisions.
There is no question of local authorities being able to evade or skimp the consultation requirements. The Bill places very specific duties on the councils in this respect and the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that they comply with their statutory duties in full. The provisions in Schedule 1 and Clause 10 that I have mentioned are necessary simply to reassure private bodies who are considering buying tenanted council housing, or taking over their management, that the transaction cannot subsequently—and this is the
640
important point—be declared void because of a minor flaw in the way in which the consultations with tenants were carried out. Without such a guarantee, such transactions would be unlikely to take place.
I said that I was surprised that certain noble Lords opposite feel that these provisions are unnecessary, because I note that the noble Lord, Lord ElystanMorgan, said at col. 319 at Report stage:
"Speaking as a lawyer, and particularly, if I may say so, as one who was a solicitor for many years before being a barrister and who was a conveyancer, I can well understand the need to protect the purchaser for value in such a situation".
He at least was in no doubt about the need for these provisions. He went on to say:
"Indeed, it would be a difficult circumstance for a solicitor acting for the purchaser to find himself in advising as to whether or not the title of the purchaser was valid, because all manner of requisitions would have to be raised as to exactly the procedure adopted by the local authority in relation to these provisions".—[Official Report, 22, 10/1986; col. 319.]
I apologise to the noble Lord for quoting him at such length, but his words explain as clearly as any of mine, and no doubt with far more eloquence, why these provisions are essential in this Bill. As I have said repeatedly during the passage of the Bill, the Secretary of State will take all possible steps to ensure that there are no shortcomings in the way the consultations are carried out. But if any tenant should feel that there has been any failure by either the Secretary of State or the local authority in this respect, it will still be open to him to apply to the courts for suitable redress.
The provisions we are debating now are not without precedent. Similar provisions are to be found in, for example, Section 23(1) of the Community Land Act 1975, which noble Lords opposite will know well. I hope that they will feel able to withdraw these amendments in the light of the advice given by their noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan.
Lastly, I invite your Lordships to turn to page 10 of the Marshalled List to the second block of print which forms paragraph 6 of the new schedule proposed by noble Lords opposite. This is the final paragraph of Amendment No. 20, which we shall get on to shortly. I note that that amendment proposes just such a purchaser protection provision in a similar context. Surely if noble Lords opposite recognise that it is necessary in one case, they must accept that it is necessary in another. I hope therefore that they will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, as the Minister has made some observations about a later amendment—one to which my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has been put—I think I should say that we have a special purpose in putting forward this later amendment and that it will become quite clear why we have put in a provision similar to paragraph 6 in our schedule. But I should like to point out to him that the first words are different. They say,
"In relation to a purchaser"
which I think makes quite a considerable difference to that sentence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have put down my name to the amendment deleting paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. As these two are linked, I think that it would be wise if I spoke now. My main concern is the

641
fact that the Minister has repeatedly said that tenants who are dissatisfied will have recourse to the law, to the courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has said, very few council tenants will be likely willingly to take court action. They will be terrified of the expense; they will have read in many newspapers about the costs of court action. It seems to me that it is totally unfair to put down a whole list of requirements by the Secretary of State and the local authority and then totally negate them in one paragraph.
One of the big problems with this sort of thing is that the Secretary of State is not required to give any reasons for his decision, and if he has not taken the action that is required then nobody knows what are the reasons. The same thing has recently occurred, and has been brought to my attention, under one of the National Health Service Acts. Tenants must feel that they have been given a rightful hearing and that the action has been taken on the basis of their hearing. If the courts take notice only of the Act—for I gather that they do not read Hansard and do not see the assurances by the Minister and that sort of thing—they will take the words of the Act literally and there will be no deviation, no allowances, for what happens to the tenants. Therefore I think that this clause is unnecessary and should be deleted.
Lord Elysian-Morgan: My Lords, may I say how deeply grateful I am to the noble Lord the Minister for the attention that he gave to the humble words which I uttered on an earlier occasion, and how very flattered I am that he should so have concentrated upon them? I should like to make my position very clear, as obviously I could not have succeeded in so doing on the previous occasion. In relation to the second schedule and to paragraph 6 thereof, I expressed what I felt must be the attitude of all reasonably minded persons; that is, that where an innocent, bona fide purchaser for value has purchased that property it really would be invidious in later transactions, when solicitors have to answer requisitions on title, if there was even a scintilla of doubt as to whether or not that transaction could in any way be invalidated and the whole chain of devolution of title thereby shattered.
Having said that, however, I said that what I was desperately thinking about was some compromise that, on the one hand, would protect fully the position of the bona fide purchaser (who may indeed be a purchaser from a purchaser from a purchaser who was involved in the original transaction), and at the same time safeguard, if I may say so, the position of the utterly genuine and bona fide tenant objector. It seems to me that it is a desperately difficult thing for Parliament to he able to achieve both those purposes.
The purchaser for value should be protected because it is wrong that there should be a continuing query, albeit perhaps, in a highly theoretical situation, over the validity of that title. The bona fide tenant objector deserves to be protected because it is nonsense, in my submission, for Parliament to say that it is mandatory that certain measures of a basic nature should be indulged in by a local authority and then to say, "But, if you do not do so, nothing will happen to you". That is the dichotomy which occupied me then and occupies me now.
642
However, the situation of a management agreement is on rather different grounds. In other words, the subject matter of Amendment No. 4 is very different from that of Amendment No. 19, which deals with paragraph 6. I do not believe there is really any easy answer, but I am sure that the House will agree that it is a matter of fundamental importance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have no desire to detain the House much longer on this amendment. We all know that the principle involved has had quite lengthy discussion during the proceedings of this Bill at all stages. I think the Minister put the case in a nutshell when he said that the tenants have the fullest protection—or words to that effect—of the Secretary of State if they do not follow the consultations as contained in the clause and in the schedule. That I think I accepted earlier on. What I am asking is this: who protects the tenant if the Secretary of Sate defaults either by accident or by design—though I would not for one moment put that as a possibility? But, on a mistake being made, the tenant has no protection and if it is either the Secretary of State or his department that falls down, then it is hard luck on the tenant but the purchaser retains the fullest protection all along the line. On the basis of that, I do not think I can withdraw the amendment and I should like to test the views of the House.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Brockway, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jacques, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Denington, B.

Listowel, E.

Devonshire, D.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mais, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Mar, C.

Ennals, L.

Milford, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Falkender, B.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fitt, L.

Northfield, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L.

Reilly, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Underhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Vernon, L.

Scanlon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Seear, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Serota, B.

Whaddon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon, V.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stallard, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Allerton, L.

Layton, L.

Alport, L.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne. L.

Merrivale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Molson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Chelmer, L.

Onslow, E.

Coleraine. L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Croft, L.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Portland, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rugby, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Sandford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandys, L.

Gainford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Somers, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gray, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torrington, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vickers, B.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wise, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

5.5 p.m.
Clause 13 [Other amendments relating to assured tenancies]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 32, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("applies") and insert ("The above amendment").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I beg to move this amendment. It fulfils an undertaking given by my noble friend that we would table a government amendment to the assured tenancy scheme to prevent contracting out. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for her patience and I am sorry that she has had to wait until Third Reading for our amendment to appear.
The only significant difference between this amendment and what the Opposition proposed is that there is a saving for any cases where contracting out may already have occurred. However, I think the difference is theoretical rather than real, since we are not aware of any cases, out of a very limited number of assured tenancy lettings, where the contracting out provisions have actually been used. Nevertheless, the principle that the status of a tenancy, once granted, ought not to be changed fundamentally by statute is one which we regard as important. Accordingly, we think it right that any assured tenancy already granted which may have relied on Section 38(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 should not be affected by these provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are of course very glad to have had the principle of any amendment accepted by the Government and we shall not complain at the small changes which have been made from the original amendment that we proposed. We welcome this amendment.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 33, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980 (application of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to assured tenancies), for paragraph 8 (modification of provisions relating to contracting out) substitute—
"8. Section 38 applies as if the following provisions were omitted—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "(except as provided by subsection (4) of this section)";

(b) in subsection (2), the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b);

(c) subsections (3) and (4)."

The above amendment, so far as it relates to section 38(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, does not apply to an agreement both approved by the court under that provision and entered into before the commencement of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 7:
Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Housing Stress Area.

—(1) The Secretary of State may, upon application from a local housing authority, designate that area a Housing Stress Area.

645

(2) In reaching a decision, the Secretary of State shall have regard to;

(a) whether more than one half of an authority's lettings to new tenants are made to homeless households; and

(b) the average earnings of those seeking to be housed and the availability and occupational costs of private rented accommodation and dwellings for owner occupation within the area; and

(c) the number of dwellings which are: unfit for human habitation within the meaning of Sections 282 and 604 of the Housing Act 1985; fit for human habitation but lacking standard amenities as defined in the Housing Act 1985 Part XV; in need of repair and renovation; and

(d) the number of households which are overcrowded, require specialist accommodation, and are sharing accommodation.

(3) An area may be designated as a Housing Stress Area for a period of not less than two years and thereafter extended.

(4) Where an authority is designated as a Housing Stress Area, the local authority concerned may:

(a) utilise, in any year, 100% of its capital receipts generated from sales of land and property and repayments of sums advanced, or left outstanding, for housing purposes;

(b) acquire or lease properties, by negotiation, from the private sector;

(c) submit applications to the Secretary of State for approval of schemes to compulsorily acquire private sector properties which have been vacant for more than six months.

(5) Local authorities my submit applications for additional capital and revenue resources to the Secretary of State for special Exchequer funding, as are appropriate to discharge their functions in Housing Stress Areas.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, as your Lordships will be aware, deals with the question of housing stress areas and resources for such places. Obviously we should prefer the Government to respond to the present housing crisis by making far more resources available in all areas. While there is a concentration of problems in inner city areas, we certainly acknowledge that there are very serious problems in rural districts too. However, given that the Government are unlikely to make a significant increase in housing resources available, we see merit in their providing additional resources to the worst affected areas.
Housing stress areas would in any event not be limited to inner city areas because, increasingly, rural and suburban areas are facing more difficulties themselves and are having to house a greater proportion of homeless households. The clause has not been drawn too tightly and the Secretary of State will have discretion. Nevertheless, he will have to have regard to a number of key indicators on which information is readily available and is provided by local authorities in housing investment programme returns and in other returns to the DoE.
Local authorities can already provide a number of housing activities within an area, and the greatest restriction is not in regard to legal powers but the lack of resources. Consequently, subsection (5) is the most important part of this clause because it will allow local authorities to submit applications for additional resources.
However, subsection (4) will allow local authorities to do three things which the Government at present effectively prohibit. First, they will be able to use 100 per cent. of their capital receipts. At present they can use 100 per cent., but only 20 per cent. in any one year and then 20 per cent. of what is left in the following year, and so on. Further, they would be able to acquire and lease properties by negotiation, and this is
646
something which the Government have effectively stopped as they regard it as municipalisation. Also, they would be able compulsorily to acquire vacant properties subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
Your Lordships may think that this clause is far from perfect, but it highlights the very great problems that some authorities face and it would put pressure upon the Secretary of State to take those problems more seriously after enactment. We believe that the housing stress areas of this country are the areas which are literally crying out for cash to halt a very dangerous decline in the housing stock that is already there. This belief is not held by one particular group of people, but has been underlined time after time by reports from various bodies which are not politically motivated but which have expertise in this particular subject. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Again, my Lords, I am afraid that this amendment would do no practical good. There are already mechanisms for distributing resources, and they already give priority to the areas with the greatest needs. On the revenue side, £500 million a year of Exchequer housing subsidy is paid to those local authorities which are assessed as having deficits on their housing revenue accounts. Moreover, there is an element in the rate support grant calculations, E7, which works in parallel to channel block grant to authorities which are assessed as needing to make rate fund contributions to their housing revenue accounts.
On the capital side, the housing investment programme allocations for the current year and for previous years have been based to a substantial extent on the generalised needs index. This index, which was devised and reviewed by my department in discussions with the local authority associations in 1986–87, was an attempt to summarise all the relevant aspects of housing conditions. The generalised needs index already takes into account most of the criteria for designation of a housing stress area suggested in subsection (2) of this proposed clause. Particular account is taken of the level of homelessness, the condition of the local authority and private sector housing stocks, and the amount of overcrowded accommodation in the area. The GNI scores for inner city areas are given an additional weighting, and for 1986–87 that weighting was significantly increased, with a consequent increase in the proportion of HIP allocations which they received.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has highlighted subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, which outlines the powers that housing stress area status would bestow on a local authority. Taking each in turn, first, the Government have no plans to change the current system of prescribing the proportion of their capital receipts which local authorities may spend in any one year. Such controls are necessary to ensure that the economic effects of the sales of assets are carefully shared over a number of years. Allowing housing stress areas to spend all their receipts in the year in which they were generated would, in any case, only have limited impact on the area's housing problems as such areas would generally be inner city areas which are characterised by relatively low receipts.

647
Secondly, paragraph (b) is unnecessary. In fact, local authorities are already empowered by Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 to acquire freehold or leasehold property for housing and they do not need the Secretary of State's consent.
Finally, on paragraph (c), Part II of the 1985 Housing Act already gives local authorities the powers to acquire property compulsorily for the provision of housing accommodation. While we would prefer to see the private owner make effective use of the property, we will consider such compulsory purchase order applications on their merits to ensure, for example, that the property does not stand idle unnecessarily. This was a point that clearly was worrying the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, at Question Time recently. Additional powers are not therefore needed. I submit that this amendment is unnecessary in some respects and inappropriate or ineffective in others. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister once again appears to have defended the financial situation that the Government have imposed on local authorities since they took office—that of increasing resources. However, anyone involved with the situation will know that the housing investment programmes in areas that badly need high housing investment programmes have been cut severely once again this year. When the Minister speaks of government finance on housing, he seems to have invented his own form of political abacus in which he moves the beads to where they suit his own political purposes. Having said that, I do not think we are going to get any sympathy from the Government. In fact, the sums of money required are far in excess of what this particular new clause would achieve, though I think it would benefit some areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 8:
Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Housing the homeless.

.—(1) The Housing Act 1985 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) In section 58 (definition of homelessness) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(2A) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.

(2B) Regard may be had, in determining whether it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the district of the local housing authority to whom he has applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation."

(3) For section 69(1) (provisions supplementary to ss.63, 65 and 68) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(1) A local housing authority may perform any duty under section 65 or 68 (duties to persons found to be homeless) to secure that accommodation becomes available for the occupation of a person—

(a) by making available suitable accommodation held by them under Part II (provisions of housing) or any enactment, or

648

(b) by securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person, or

(c) by giving him such advice and assistance as will secure that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person,

and in determining whether accommodation is suitable they shall have regard to Part IX (slum clearance), X (overcrowding) and XI (houses in multiple occupation) of this Act."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing back this new clause, which is concerned with homelessness and trying to put right what we consider to be the wrong done by the Puhlhofer judgment. We brought this amendment forward both in Committee and on Report because we wished to restore the rights of homeless people under the homelessness legislation to those which existed before the judgment in the case of R. v. London Borough of Hillingdon ex parte Puhlhofer. We are now bringing the amendment back because the Minister appears not to have understood the purpose or the intention of Parliament in passing the homelessness legislation.
At Report stage, the noble Lord said that our amendment, in defining the concept of accommodation for the purposes of the homelessness legislation, would not restore but extend the rights of homeless people to help, compared with the situation which existed before the judgment In col. 347 of the Official Report of 21st October he claimed:
"The homeless persons legislation was intended to provide a long stop for dealing with people who are roofless…not with what this amendment is all about—the standard of their accommodation".
This is rather misleading. The intention of Parliament in passing the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act was not just to deal with people who are literally roofless. It was also to provide help for people who do have accommodation but where the premises, for example, are not capable of being occupied by themselves and other members of their household who might reasonably be expected to reside with them, as referred to in Section 75 of the Housing Act 1985.
Clearly the condition of that accommodation is a relevant factor here. The code of guidance which the Department of the Environment issued to accompany the homeless persons legislation underlines this point. It states, for example, in section 2.16 in relation to the condition of accommodation occupied:
"that local authorities should not treat as intentionally homeless those who have been driven to leave their accommodation because conditions have degenerated to a point where they could not in all circumstances reasonably be expected to remain, perhaps because of overcrowding or lack of basic amenities or severe emotional stress".
The code is even more explicit in relation to the duties of local authorities in providing accommodaton for the homeless which the second part of our amendment addresses. It states in section 4(4):
"Permanent accommodation should be secured wherever possible",
and it indicates in section 4(3) that local authorities should have due regard to relevant provisions of general housing and public health legislation. That section requires that premises should not be unfit, overcrowded or below other statutory standards.
Parliament's intention, therefore, was that the homelessness legislation should provide help not simply to people who are literally without a roof over their heads. Parliament expected that local authorities

649
would have due regard to the standards and conditions in which households are living in determining their duties towards them under the homeless persons legislation. The Puhlhofer decision overturned this. The judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, established that accommodation for the purposes of the Act meant premises physically capable of accommodating the applicant. Such a concept is incompatible with Parliament's original intention confirmed by the code of guidance issued by the department concerning the Act. That is why we bring this amendment forward again. It would not extend but merely restore homeless people's rights to the situation existing before the Puhlhofer judgment.
The Minister has consistently called on us to produce evidence of the adverse effects which the judgment has had on the treatment of homeless people. Although we produced significant evidence at Report stage, we consider the call for evidence to be misleading for, as we have explained, the concept of accommodation established by the judgment is incompatible with that originally intended by Parliament. The incompatability is such that it is necessary to consider preventive action of the modest kind which our amendment proposes. I would remind the House that an amendment similar to this was accepted by your Lordships when the Housing (Scotland) Bill was going through this House. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this subject is one which the noble Lords who subscribe to Amendment No. 8 have refined over the last three weeks of debate. The Government's position, however, remains that it is at best premature to make any attempt to amend the homelessness legislation in the light of the Law Lords' judgment in the Puhlhofer case.
Last time round at Report stage, we heard a lot about evidence of authorities having changed their policies and what had been submitted to the department. I do not think it would profit us to go over that again in any detail. But I must say, in answer to that remark of the noble Baroness, Lady David, just now, that the important point that emerges is that two out of 366 housing authorities in England—namely, Maldon District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council—appear on the basis of the correspondence submitted to have changed their policies and one other, Holderness District Council, appears to have been thinking about it.
That is by all accounts little evidence indeed on which to be considering changing the law in the dying days of consideration of a Bill which exists for totally different purposes. It does nonetheless come from Shelter, who seven months ago invited the audience at their campaign forum to seek out and send in such evidence. This has most certainly not resulted in the flood of examples that we were led to expect. We need substantial evidence to justify possible changes in the legislation.
However, our doors and our minds remain open to any further evidence that the voluntary bodies may choose to submit. Meanwhile my department, for its part, is making its own investigations much more actively. We have now started our full postal survey of all authorities and, as the noble Baroness and Shelter
650
will know, this specifically asks about recent changes in authorities' policies. We should have the results analysed by February.
Our case studies of selected authorities will take most of next year, but will give us an opportunity to go over the Puhlhofer ground in detailed discussions along with a lot of other homeless areas. And our regular quarterly statistics should show up any significant changes in authorities' attitudes on whom they count as homeless. These ask about numbers of inquiries and also about numbers "found not to be homeless". Any major change in the proportion is something that we would inquire into further. So far, for what it is worth—and I do not place a lot of reliance on this—our figures for the first full post-Puhlhofer quarter show an overall reduction in the proportion "found not to be homeless" from 29 per cent. to 28 per cent.
Last time round, the noble Baroness seemed to be casting some doubt on the effectiveness of these monitoring exercises. All I can say is that we are doing our best. If the voluntary bodies can think of better ways of monitoring the position, I would expect to have heard from them before now, and even now I would obviously give consideration to them.
Much has been made of the rights of homeless people. The House may like to know that we are currently preparing an official leaflet on these rights for wide distribution to homeless people. We have also increased to over £½ million the grants we are giving this year to Shelter and other voluntary bodies for their housing advice services to the public, which help to ensure that the homeless get their rights and that individual cases are taken up with authorities where appropriate. Noble Lords opposite certainly have no monopoly of concern about the rights of homeless people. The Government are as anxious as anyone that within the framework of the law the homeless should know and receive their rights.
So far as concerns the noble Baroness's point on the code of guidance, I would say that this is quite irrelevant when considering whether a person is homeless. It becomes relevant after a person has been found to be homeless. It is by no means clear that the Puhlhofer case has affected the application of the code in this way. To sum up, if sufficient convincing evidence is produced, either by Shelter or by my department's monitoring exercise, we will have very much stronger grounds to consider changing the law. As matters stand today, these grounds simply do not exist.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the assurances that he has given yet again in this connection. What intrigues a number of us on this side of the House is exactly what is meant by the survey into the question of any change of policy on the part of local authorities in this connection. With great respect, it is not really a change of policy. The question really is the difference between the interpretation which local authorities placed upon the wording of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act previous to the Puhlhofer judgment and the interpretation placed after the Puhlhofer judgment in the light of the decision of this

651
House that accommodation should relate only to the capacity of premises, as it were, to hold the persons concerned.
It is not for me to express any view whatsoever as to that judgment. It is, of course, for the House of Lords to decide what the law is and not what the law should be. But what is of great importance is to find the difference between the earlier interpretation and the latter interpretation. It is not at all a matter of policy, and a most searching scrutiny has to be conducted in order to find out exactly how local authorities defined the situation previous to Puhlhofer and what changes there are in that definition post-Puhlhofer.
I am afraid that we do not all share the optimistic view of the Minister that local authorities make these returns regularly and fully. My understanding of the position is that last year over 40 per cent. of local authorities did not make the return at all, and it is unlikely that the remaining 60 per cent. made the return in the fullest and most meaningful way.
Therefore what I respectfully urge the Minister to do is to look yet again at the questions that are asked of local authorities and to ask himself whether it is a sufficiently searching inquiry to reveal the real changes which have come about in train following the Puldhofer judgment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am really disappointed at the reply which we have had again from the Minister, particularly since I am very pleased with him because of the way he has handled the Bill so far, and I am also very grateful to him for Clause 54. Therefore I hate having to stand up now and criticise him, as I am about to do.
We are worried about the interpretation that has been given to the Act. The Government are not prepared to do anything about changing the wording in order that we may have the Act as we thought we had it when it passed through this House a few years ago. But the Government also issued a code of guidance to local authorities and the least I expected from the Minister was a statement that the department is re-issuing the code of guidance.
With the code of guidance, even with the interpretation given by the courts, authorities are guided and will continue to do what they have been doing, which is to regard as homeless people who are living in uninhabitable conditions. That was one of the consequences of the code of guidance. It was not only that local authorities felt the urge to do that; I think that the code of guidance encouraged them to do that. I should have thought that the department could draw their attention once again to the code of guidance, thus underlining the need for them to preserve the highest standards, rather than accept what—if they accept the interpretation of the court literally—would be a lower standard. Therefore, if the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again, I hope that we shall get an assurance along those lines. There does not seem to me much else that we can get.
It would certainly help if the department could reiterate its code of guidance in a way that would allow local authorities to realise that what is expected of them is the higher standard that they were in fact
652
observing and not the lower standard that they were guided to observe as a result of the literal interpretation of the judgment given by the court. I hope therefore that, as it is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, the Minister will give an assurance along those lines. I invite him to do so.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too should like to welcome the noble Lord's statement about the survey and about the monitoring of the results of the Puhlhofer judgment and its effects. Does the Minister accept that the difficulty with the monitoring and the survey is not so much with the local authorities but with the housing aid centres, the law centres and the voluntary organisations which have operated the Puhlhofer judgment to the extent that they no longer refer cases to local authorities for consideration?
How does one monitor that unless one asks those agencies to list the cases that would have been referred under the previous interpretation but which are not now being referred from those agencies under the Puhlhofer judgment? Can the noble Lord give an assurance that that kind of observation and that kind of monitoring process will be included in the survey and that these organisations—the housing aid centres, the law centres and the others I have mentioned—will be asked to list the number of cases that would have been referred had they been operating under the previous interpretation?
Lord Davies: My Lords, having listened long and hard to our many discussions on this subject, I fail completely to understand the grounds of the Government's reluctance to take this opportunity to put matters right. Are they really saying that large numbers have to be found living in sheds or suchlike before this matter is put right, when it could be put right now? If they wait until those figures come before them, it probably will be years before they have another opportunity to bring the matter back before us.
Baroness David: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has just said. We have waited and waited. The opportunity is here now for us to put the situation right and to what everybody thought it was before that judgment; so I should like to press the amendment.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Alport, L.

Bernstein, L.

Amherst, E.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Blyton, L.

Attlee, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bottomley, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Brockway, L.

Mais, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar, C.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Munster, E.

Davies, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nathan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Reilly, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rugby, L.

Foot, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Somers, L.

Hughes, L.

Stallard, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Stedman, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Vernon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Whaddon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Arran, E.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Bauer, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloflf, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Geddes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Glanusk, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Caccia, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Caithness, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hesketh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hives, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Holderness, L.

Carnock, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hooper, B.

Chelmer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Coleraine, L.

Ilchester, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ironside, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cox, B.

Knollys, V.

Croft, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

De La Warr, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

McFadzean, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Selkirk, E.

Margadale, L.

Sharpies, B.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Milverton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Monson, L.

Sudeley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mottistone, L.

Torrington, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Onslow, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Vickers, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vivian, L.

Quinton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Rodney, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 19 [Disposal of dwellings in new towns]:
5.41 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 35, line 36, after ("person") insert—
("provided always that no such disposal shall take effect unless the terms thereof have been agreed by the Secretary of State and included in an order made by him and approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
() An order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
() Before agreeing to the disposal of dwellings under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the tenants of such dwellings and the district council in whose area they are situated and shall take account of their views.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to three amendments which concern new towns and the disposal of their houses when the new towns are eventually run down. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has agreed that we should debate these amendments together. Amendments Nos. 10 and 20 properly go together, and Amendment No. 9 seeks a similar objective but in a different way. I hope that will be acceptable to the House.
I start with Amendment No. 9. This amendment requires that the terms of the disposal of new town dwellings under Clause 19, other than to district councils, should be incorporated in an order by the Secretary of State and be subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. It also provides that the Secretary of State must consult the tenants of the dwellings concerned and the district council before laying an order.
Clause 19 was only introduced into the Bill by the Government at the Committee stage in your Lordships' Chamber. It is in the most brief and skeletal form. It has not been the subject of adequate consultation or consideration, and it is not clear how the power to dispose of the dwellings to "any person" will be used. At a meeting with new town district councils on 16th October the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, stressed that he was unable to indicate how the powers would be used as this has not yet been decided. Clause 19 does not provide, inter alia, for the following important points.
The first is the financial terms of any disposal and how much debt might be written off. The second point is the form of any consultation with the tenants of the dwellings to be disposed of; how it would be conducted; whether it would be independently conducted; and whether it would be binding. Clause 19 is in stark contrast to Schedule 1 to the Bill which lays down procedures for consultation with tenants, including a tenants' veto, as we have heard before, (see paragraph 5), in the case where a district council—which, unlike a development corporation, already has democratic input—proposes disposal to the private sector. The third point concerns safeguards for staff, including compensation, pensions and continued employment. The fourth is availability of relets in the stock to district councils to meet housing responsibilities to people on the housing list and for those who are statutorily homeless. In view of these important points it is vital that Parliament should have the opportunity to approve the final arrangements which are made in respect of disposals under this clause.
As regards the third subsection of the amendment, the Secretary of State in his original policy announcement indicated that he would consult tenants and district councils. The amendment seeks to put that on a statutory basis. The Minister has admitted that his knowledge of new towns and the district councils in whose areas they are is not vast. He has admitted that plans have not been properly considered about what is to happen as a result of the new clause. As this is the case, it is surely only right that Parliament should have a further chance to examine the proposals and to discuss them—indeed, to vote on them.
As regards Amendments Nos. 10 and 20, these propose a consultation procedure which is based entirely on the Government's own consultation procedure which the Minister has praised so highly and so often while this Bill has been going through the House. The only changes in the schedule are to insert instead of "local authority" the words,
"the Commission, a development corporation or the Rural Development Board for Wales".
Therefore, we follow almost exactly the words in the earlier schedule. If it is all right for local authority tenants to be consulted in that way, it seems to me only fair that the tenants of new town dwellings should also have a right to speak on what is going to happen to the houses in which they live. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 20. The noble Baroness has put the case very fully. Perhaps I may first say how grateful she and I were to my noble friend the Minister for seeing us and discussing with us the whole question of the new towns.
The fact must be faced that the position with regard to the new towns is unique. We are talking about the transfer—or the closure or winding up, if one may put it that way—of the development corporations and the disposal of the properties which come under them. I wish to make two points which have, in fact, already been made by the noble Baroness. First, as regards disposal of the houses, I can see, and I believe it is
656
right, that people should have the opportunity to buy their council houses. Equally, I believe that housing associations should have certain houses if they so wish. But I believe also that the local authority should have a housing stock. I say that for two reasons: first, tenants should have a choice; and, secondly, there is the question of homelessness, which we have discussed in another respect.
Everyone who is on a housing list is not necessarily homeless. A number of people on the housing lists are perhaps living with relatives or friends and are not necessarily homeless. However, there are people who are literally homeless. It is those homeless people whom one is deeply concerned about, where one can see very great distress in families and the effect it has on children. Therefore, I believe that it is right that the local authorities should have a housing stock in order that they may deal with the homeless problem. If they do not have a housing stock, they have no way of coping with that problem.
The second point underlined by the noble Baroness is that of consultation. I support the noble Baroness in that the existing schedule lays down consultation before disposal to the private sector. This applies to local authorities, so why should it not apply in this instance? Therefore, I support the noble Baroness in these amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, these amendments supported en deuxiàme notes by my noble friend Lady Faithfull perpetuate the outdated presumption that new town housing should, in the normal course of events, pass to the local authority. Amendment No. 9 implies that any proposal to the contrary is so controversial and unusual that the full scrutiny of Parliament should be brought to bear. If we did what the Opposition seems to want and let the remaining new town housing transfers proceed by way of schemes under Part III of the New Towns Act, there would be no requirement to consult tenants and no referral to Parliament. The implication is that new town tenants should be happy on every occasion to see their houses transferred into local authority ownership, but that any other arrangements, including arrangements which preserved the tenants' position as secure tenants under the Housing Act, must be submitted to the detailed scrutiny of Parliament. This is illogical. So what do the Government propose?
I have given assurances that we will, through administrative measures, ensure that tenants are consulted on both options, transfer to the council and transfer to non-council owners, wherever that choice exists. I am convinced that this is the right approach. Amendment No. 9 cannot be accepted in its present form, because as drafted it would produce absurd results. For example, every time the commission for the new towns wished to sell a tenanted house to its occupant under their voluntary sales scheme, the requirement for an affirmative resolution order would be triggered. If this amendment is accepted Parliament can expect a plethora of affirmative instruments, many of which would refer to as little as a single dwelling.
The amendment is illogical, unworkable and, I suggest, misconceived. It is principally a device for raising once more the wish of local authorities to be given first refusal on the remaining new town houses

657
regardless of tenants' wishes. That is an outdated attitude. The Government's policy is to ensure that tenants are consulted in all new town housing transfer situations. This is fair to all parties and it works.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 10 and 20. These amendments apply consultation provisions similar to those provided for by Clause 6 of the Bill to any case of a proposed sale, under the powers specified in Clause 19, as a result of which a new town secure tenant will become the tenant of any other person
"except a district council taking transfer under Part III".
I must ask my noble friend: where is the choice for those tenants who will he transferred to the local authority? Once again, the implication is that the views of tenants do not matter if the proposed transfer is a transfer to a local authority. That cannot be right. Conversely, and unlike the consultation requirements introduced by Clause 6, these same amendments would require consultation even in cases where the new landlord is to be a registered housing association, for example where tenants would remain secure tenants under the Housing Act.
I have given assurances at Committee and at Report that tenants will be consulted on all proposals for transfer of tenanted new town housing to new owners whether these new owners are in the private or the public sector. The relationship between the Government and the new town corporations is a close one, and there is no difficulty in giving effect to those assurances. I cannot anticipate circumstances where it would be necessary to give the corporations a legal direction, but should such circumstances arise in the future to make it necessary the New Towns Act already makes it possible. We have deliberately not attempted anything more by way of amendment of the New Towns Act than the minimum needed to pave the way for simultaneous consideration of Part III and non-Part III proposals for transfer of new town housing where appropriate.
For the reasons I have given, the present amendments, Nos. 9, 10 and 20, are therefore not acceptable, and I must ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing them.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that we wished all the houses to go to the districts. We want some of them to be able to go to the districts. I must emphasise that the waiting lists at the towns involved are quite considerable: over 5,000 at Basildon; nearly 2,000 at Crawley; over 2,000 at Milton Keynes; 3,350 at Peterborough; 4,517 at Warrington; and nearly 2,000 at Wrekin, which concerns Telford new town. So these districts are already having difficulty in housing the people in their areas who need housing, and this is what we are anxious about. We do not mind at all some houses going to housing associations. We are perhaps worried about their going to private persons, and the new clause, Clause 19, says "any person". That is what lies behind the worries of the noble Baroness and myself. The Minister has given some assurances about the consultations which will take place, but may I take it from him that tenants will be consulted before he comes to any decision? Can he answer that question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I have made it quite clear that where consultation is appropriate—and in any case that I can currently envisage it would be—the tenants will be consulted.
Baroness David: My Lords, in view of the assurances that the Minister has given and in view of what he told both the noble Baroness and the deputation from the new towns that he saw—that their views will be taken into account before anything very drastic happens—I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope that what we have said about the need for these districts to have a proper housing stock will be kept very fully in mind by the Minister, whose responsibility it is to deal with the new towns now; so it will be up to him to make sure that these promises and expectations are lived up to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Determination of price for leasehold enfranchisement]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 39, line 24, leave out ("notwithstanding that") and insert ("where").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 11, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 fulfil the undertaking which I gave during the debate on Clause 22 at Report stage that the Government would consider further the question of transitional provisions. I first remind your Lordships that the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 originally only gave rights of enfranchisement to leaseholders whose homes were in the lower rateable value bracket. The amendments made to the Housing Act 1974, which was a Bill introduced by a Labour Government, allowed leaseholders in a higher rateable value bracket to enfranchise, but on different terms. Those terms were generally held to be much closer to market value than those applying to houses of lower rateable value.
One of the key differences between the 1967 terms and the 1974 terms, if I may refer to them in that way, was that whereas when enfranchising under the 1967 terms it is assumed that the tenant has exercised his statutory right to a 50-year extension lease whether or not he has actually done so, under the 1974 terms that assumption is not made, with the result that a higher price is payable.
However, the Hickman judgment enables a leaseholder with a house in a higher rateable value bracket to achieve a lower price for enfranchisement if he first applies for an extended lease under Section 14 of the 1967 Act, and then applies for the freehold under Section 8 before the date on which the original lease would have expired. It does not seem very profitable to speculate now on Parliament's intention in 1974, but what one is entitled to say is that the situation revealed by the Hickman judgment, under which there can be two entirely different valuations for the same house depending on the route to enfranchisement chosen by the leaseholder, is

659
anomalous. That being so, once the matter was brought to light by the judgment in the Hickman case, which produced striking differences in valuation depending on which set of assumptions was adopted, it follows that the sooner the loophole can reasonably be closed the better.
We are concerned, however, that any change in the valuation assumptions should not affect cases which, although they may be based on the loophole, are already well advanced. Indeed, this was the issue on which much of the debate at Report stage focused. We acknowledged that Clause 22, as it emerged from Committee, was not acceptable in this respect. Therefore Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 tabled by the Government are intended to deal with cases in the pipeline which are far advanced. These amendments strike a balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. They ensure that any leaseholder in the higher rateable value bracket who has already applied for enfranchisement under Section 8 of the 1967 Act, or who does so by the time this Bill receives Royal Assent, will be able to enfranchise on the Hickman terms. Any leaseholders who apply for enfranchisement after Royal Assent will be subject to the new valuation assumptions unless the landlord and leaseholder reach agreement before commencement, in which case the agreement stands and the case cannot be reopened. With these amendments we have, I think, dealt with the majority of the cases which were causing concern at Report stage.
We have considered carefully the points made by noble Lords who argued that the new valuation assumptions should not apply where a leaseholder had applied for an extended lease under Section 14 of the 1967 Act. Some examples have been drawn to our attention of cases where a leaseholder has been attempting to secure an extended lease for well over a year and has not been able to finalise the matter. Leaseholders in those cases deserve sympathy.
The difficulty that I have with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is that it does not distinguish those cases from others where leaseholders may have applied for an extended lease recently with the intention of taking advantage of the Hickman judgment. It would be casting the net too wide to take all those cases on board and exempt them from the new valuation assumptions. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 39, line 26, leave out from ("given") to end of line 27 and insert ("after the passing of this Act, notwithstanding that it was given before the commencement of this section, unless the price has by commencement").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think there may be some discussion on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 13:
Leave out from ("unless") to the end and insert—
("either the tenant or any predecessor in title of the tenant has before 10 October 1986 given a valid notice under Section 14 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (notice of desire to have an extended lease) and such notice has not been abandoned or the price of the freehold has by commencement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation to the noble Baroness for having carried out the undertaking she gave on Report. There is no doubt that what is proposed by the Government in Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 goes a long way towards solving the problems of retrospection. However, as the noble Baroness remarked, there are still those who have sought to acquire their enfranchisement through the route of extended tenancy believing that to be a valid procedure. That is not dealt with under her amendment. It is for that reason that the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I have moved this further amendment.
We believe that if this provision were added to the government amendment it would entirely cover the point about retrospection, on which I believe the House has strong feelings. There was a debate about the cut-off date. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said that unless we had an early enough cut-off date many people could leap through and seek to take advantage of the alleged loophole. That is why we have suggested in Amendment No. 13 the cut-off date of 10th October. That was the date in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, moved his amendment which is now Clause 22.
I should like to ask your Lordships and, in particular, the Government to reconsider the matter in the light of the evident concern shown by the House on Report on the issue of retrospective legislation. We do not want people to continue to take advantage of a loophole which will be closed, but we want to safeguard those who have properly notified freeholders of their desire to obtain extended leases, with a view eventually to obtaining the freehold, and did so in the knowledge that that appeared to be a proper course at the time. It is for that reason that we advance this further amendment, which I hope will have your Lordships' support. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before I refer to the amendments which we are discussing I should like to ask for your Lordships' forbearance while I refer to a misunderstanding which may have been current in the House last week and which was manifested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who took the view, and expressed it fairly forcefully, that what I had called an anomaly or a loophole was Parliament's plain intention. Moreover, he sought to persuade your Lordships that that was manifest from the judgment of Lord Justice Fox in the Mosley v. Hickman case. What the noble Lord then said with regard to the judgment was to the effect that the Lord Justice was clearly saying that what the landlords were objecting to in the Hickman case was not an anomaly as such, but a clear, cold-blooded, clear-headed, deliberate decision of Parliament.
I think that the answer to that is made clear by looking carefully through the judgment. I do not propose to do that now. The judgment of the Lord Justice was to the effect that there were anomalies but that it was up to Parliament and not the Court of Appeal to correct them.
On the point of what Parliament intended, the noble Lord invited me to quote the Official Report of Parliament which supported my contention. At the time, I was unable to do so. The facts are clearly

661
established in cols. 1763–8 of Hansard of 24th July 1974. My noble friend Lady Young at that time moved the amendment which is now Clause 9(1A) of the 1967 Act. Any reading of her speeches will make it abundantly clear that she thought that she was providing enhanced compensation for freeholders of higher rateable value houses.
It is true that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the Government, drew attention to the possibility that the amendment was flawed and would not have the result that my noble friend intended. He did so in terms that made it clear that he did not have in mind the loophole that eventually transpired. There was nothing in his speech to suggest that it was Parliament's intention that the Hickman principle should have effect.
I am for concurring with Amendment No. 12, but I do not accept the force of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with regard to Amendment No. 13 in so far as it allows in all qualified leaseholders who after the publicity following the Court of Appeal judgment in March of this year served notice under Section 14.
That may not drive a coach and horses through Clause 22 but it throws a substantial wedge into the clause. There are a number of cases where astute lessees, having discovered following the judgment that there was this possibility, served the necessary notice under Section 14. It would not be reasonable to bring those people safely through the commencement provisions of the clause. However, I am persuaded that there are a number of cases—I no not think that they can be counted on the fingers of more than a hand or two—where lessees who served their notices under Section 14 well before the judgment in the Mosley v. Hickman appeal may well be said to have stood by the decision of that judgment and have expected to profit from it when their reading of the law was found to be correct.
The noble Lord's amendment was tabled only late. I did not see it until this afternoon. I suggest to my noble friend that fairness would be done as between tenants and landlords in such cases if the general substance of the noble Lord's amendment were to be put into effect but with the cut-off date put back from 10th October to the day after the Court of Appeal judgment, I believe that was 5th March.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I should like first to deal with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I argued on the last occasion that this was no loophole in the sense that Parliament had misconceived the position completely and had passed legislation to an effect wholly different from what it had intended. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, who has put his case with great fairness and with his usual charm, I still hold to that view. Indeed, with great respect, that was the attitude of the learned Lord Justice Fox and the other judges in the Hickman case. There is nothing in my reading of that judgment to suggest that the court thought that there was post-1974 any dubiety whatever in relation to the law. My reading of the debates of 1974 confirms the view that there never seems to have been any argument at all about the situation. Parliament may or may not have
662
been doing a logical thing. But it knew what it was doing, and it was doing it quite openly and deliberately.
As to the suggestion by the noble Lord on how government amendments Nos. 11 and 12 can be improved, I respectfully suggest that it is illogical for two reasons and that the House should give urgent consideration to supporting Amendment No. 13 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It is illogical in my respectful submission for these reasons. First, it is not as if the Court of Appeal in March this year changed the law. Had there been a fundamental change in the law, that would be a significant watershed that could be picked out in this legislation as being the significant date. But that is exactly what the Court of Appeal did not do. It agreed unanimously with the decision of the Lands Tribunal and said, in effect, that the law was what it had always been thought to be for the last 12 years, from 1974 onwards. Therefore, logically, March 1986 has no significance because it changed nothing. It did not create any new scene whatever. It merely endorsed what legal practitioners had thought was the situation over the 12 years from 1974 onwards.
Secondly, it is illogical for a totally different reason. The justification for doing anything to ameliorate what otherwise would be the unfair rigour of Clause 22 as it now exists is retrospection. It is with abhorrence that Parliament has always recoiled from doing something that is retrospective. A citizen who has done something relating to himself or to his property, acting in the genuine belief, fostered by the atmosphere that existed at the time, as to the state of the law at that time, then finds that Parliament by some later Act has changed the whole situation; has leapt over his back, as it were, turned the clock back in time and made his position greatly prejudiced.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that all the arguments he advances against retrospection could be advanced with equal force against the original Leasehold Reform Act itself?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I accept totally that whenever Parliament changes a law there are going to be people who are disappointed. There are people who will say that the dividing line has been drawn. One cannot pass an Act of Parliament without there being a dividing line. There will be some people who are inches this side of the line and others who will have the good fortune to be inches away from it. But the difference between the situation put by the noble Lord and the situation with which I am dealing is this. When the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Act of 1974 were being considered there was ample publicity in respect of the intention of Parliament to change the law. I do not believe that any freeholder in the United Kingdom could not have known what was likely to happen. I do not cavil for a moment at the great publicity that was properly given to the anticipated decision of Parliament in that connection.
A person who had to make certain vital decisions in the relevant months of 1966 and 1967 would be able to make them in anticipation of what was likely to happen in Parliament at that time. That is not the

663
situation here. The situation here is that up to a fortnight ago—up to 10th October this year—there was no suggestion that the law was to be changed. An amendment was put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to which many persons may not have attended as assiduously as they might. It was well down the order and late into the night. A suggestion was made in the amendment to the Government. It was accepted suddenly and with such alacrity by the Government that it made the conversion on the road to Damascus seem a process of total vacillation. I do not know whether there is to be a similar conversion in respect of the suggestion made by the noble Lord at the moment. But no one can compare the tremendous warning that would have been given to property owners in 1966 and 1967 with the swiftness and suddenness of the government decision a fortnight ago.
One can do one of two things, in my submission, with retrospection. One can either say that one will have nothing to do with it or one can compromise oneself in relation to it. This amendment and the suggestion of the noble Lord is a compromise. It is a compromise that accepts the evil of retrospection. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is a stance that is to the credit of Parliament, saying that we will have nothing whatever to do with it. I do not believe that the number of cases is very considerable. My advice from practitioners in the field is that there are very few indeed.
I venture to suggest, however, that they form two very meritorious groups. The most meritorious is the person who has said to himself that he will seek under Section 14 of the 1967 Act a new and extended lease. That is not just a case of reaching up to the tree and taking the tremendous bonus that is within his grasp. It is a very deliberate decision that might involve him in paying a very much higher rent—something that he has to do in a most deliberate and cold-blooded way. He may have committed substantial financial resources, tying himself to a lease that has a long time to run. He does so fully intending, some years later, to avail himself of what he regarded as a twin possibility; that is, of enfranchisement. He would not have contemplated for a moment the extended lease were it not for the possibility and, so far as he was concerned, the certainty, of enfranchisement. Does Parliament really say that it should not help that man? Does Parliament say that it should suddenly, after 12 years, change its mind and say to that man, "We are very sorry. You took that decision in good faith. But you are now saddled with it". That, I respectfully suggest, is the evil of retrospection. There is no compromise with it. One either rejects it or espouses it.
The second category is perhaps not quite as meritorious. It is the man who says to himself, "I can do one of two things here, or both. I can have an extended lease, or an extended lease and later enfranchisement. I certainly have not made up my mind as to enfranchisement. I shall have an extended lease first and keep the option open". My sympathies are not quite as considerable in relation to him, but it is nevertheless a meritorious case. In my submission those are two categories of people who do not deserve to suffer from retrospection.
664
I have been told—I am not in a position to call evidence in relation to this—that in some cases landlords have deliberately slowed down the process in the hope that they would thereby put off a person from having an extended lease. There are cases that have been quoted to me where landlords, believing that they were acting in the best interests of the freeholders, have deliberately delayed matters by making all manner of proposals with regard to an extended lease. If there are such cases—and I put my case very moderately on this basis—the position of the persons in the two categories that I have mentioned is even more meritorious.
I have spoken at considerable length. I am grateful to the House for its attention. At this late stage in the Bill I urge the House to give further consideration to whether it is worth prejudicing its own good record in relation to retrospection by considering this compromise in a situation where no compromise should be contemplated.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I seek to intervene on one point only. I do so solely because of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, brushed aside the —I thought—highly pertinent interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, on the question of retrospection invited the attention of your Lordships to the original leasehold enfranchisement legislation. As I happened to be the Front Bench spokesman of my party in 1966 when the first Bill was introduced—I see that the noble Lord, Lofd Elystan-Morgan, recalls this—I am pretty familiar with that situation.
One simply cannot brush aside this fact. There were obviously many merits of leasehold enfranchisement. I see my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft is here. He did not altogether share my views at the time on that issue. However, it is a long time ago and he has no doubt forgiven me. But I think that even he will agree, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, will agree on reflection, that when someone had granted a long lease many years before there was publicity or talk of leasehold enfranchisement, he was entitled to assume that at the end of the lease (perhaps 99 years, which was fairly normal) he would recover possession of the property and be able to grant a new lease at a higher rent, to occupy it or to demolish and rebuild it; he would regain possesion of his own property at the end of the lease which a tenant, or the predecessor of the current tenant, had agreed.
The state came along and in its wisdom, or, as I have always thought, lack of wisdom, years after the original bargain had been made and years after it was too late for the landlord to decide not to grant a lease to the tenant, altered the terms of the bargain. It gave the tenant the right to purchase the premises and to acquire the freehold on terms which were somewhat stringent, and it altered the whole bargain retrospectively.
I do not think therefore that we help counsel on this matter, which is a very much smaller issue that arises on this amendment, by just brushing aside the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It is a valid one. The noble Lord is entitled to suggest that those who get very heated about retrospection in many cases may have responsibility for the biggest retrospection of all

665
in our lifetime—the leasehold enfranchisement legislation.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord before he sits down finally will kindly give way. If he is correct in his contention that to change property rights, whether created 20 or 200 years ago, is wrong and therefore retrospective, it would mean—would it not?—that we should still be stuck with the Statute of Mortmain. None of the 1925 legislation would have been passed and the dead hand of previous centuries would still be upon our land. That surely is a proposition which, even for a debater as skilful and brilliant as the noble Lord, is an impossibility.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, even for a debater as skilful and brilliant as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that is—and he knows it from the expression on his face—a very bad point indeed. We are not involved here in that great measure, the Statute of Mortmain, or others. When we talk of leasehold reform we are involved in interference by the state through legislation in a bargain made between a landlord and a tenant at a time that the landlord, when he originally had made the agreement, could have had no idea what was going to happen, and the position is altered to his disadvantage.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, let me briefly say that I warmly support Amendment No. 12 moved by my noble friend the Minister. I believe that it gets to the root of the problem. I am very attracted to the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine to meet the problem of the other category of people who have in good faith initiated their proceedings earlier. I do not know whether there is any way of implementing that at this late stage.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as previously, these amendments have inspired a most interesting exchange of views. In spite of the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I hope that there is general agreement that the Hickman judgment revealed an anomaly in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended in 1974, that that anomaly must be removed and that Clause 22 achieves that aim.
I had thought that the question of retrospection had been covered in our discussions at Report stage. I refer the noble Lord to my remarks on that occasion. We believe that Clause 22 is not retrospective even in its present form. It may disappoint tenants' expectations, but that is not the same thing. The difficulty throughout had been how to deal with the cases in the pipeline.
The Government acknowledge that leaseholders whose cases are far advanced ought not to be deprived of the benefit of the Hickman terms. On the other hand, we must also be fair to the freeholders. I do not think it would be reasonable to allow those who have only recently submitted Section 14 notices in order to take advantage of the anomaly to get through. We believe that the Government's amendments deal with most of the deserving cases. However, I accept the point forcefully argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that there appears to be a handful of leaseholders who
666
applied to extend their leases many months ago in the expectation of being able to benefit from the Hickman terms, and in advance of the judgment. I can see the arguments for trying to deal with these cases.
While I do not think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is acceptable as it stands, for the reasons I stated before—because it still casts the net too wide—whether it is another conversion on the road to Damascus or not, I am also attracted by the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Coleraine that the cut-off date should be the date of the Appeal Courts' judgment. That would enable the small number of leaseholders who have been negotiating extended leases over a long period to benefit, but would exclude people who have only recently tried to take advantage of the anomaly. The point of using the date of the Appeal Court judgment is that it was only at that point that the anomaly in the Hickman case became widely publicised. As my noble friend has already said, this led a significantly large number of leaseholders to try to take advantage of it.
Therefore, in urging the House to accept the Government's amendments, I suggest that if the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will agree to withdraw his amendment the Government will consider whether they can introduce in another place an amendment combining the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I think we must all have been very impressed by the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. He did make it clear beyond any doubt at all in my mind that the real change that is being introduced in the 1967 and 1974 Acts is by Clause 22, which has been inserted in this Bill, and not by the Hickman judgment, which simply confirmed what was already thought to be the law beforehand. The real change was introduced in Clause 22. It is for that reason that in Amendment No. 13 the cut-off date indicated is the date on which that amendment was proposed and accepted by the Government, namely 10th October. I think that that is the entirely logical and fair position.
Before concluding, perhaps I may make one further point—that the applications for extended tenancies in these cases have been pending a very long time. Those who have sought this two-stage approach to obtaining their freehold at the end of the day probably gained nothing at all, because had they obtained their freehold by the single route earlier, obviously the then standing prices of property would have applied in assessing the price of the freehold. However, as we know, particularly in the London area where most of these cases that we are debating have arisen, there has been a massive inflation in house prices in recent years. I do not think that any benefit will have accrued to these people and they have been delayed for a very long time.
Therefore I should have thought it not at all unreasonable in all the circumstances that the amendment should be accepted. However, the noble Baroness made it clear that she would not go ahead with this proposed modified version in another place

667
unless I withdrew the amendment. I should very dearly have liked to put it to the vote but I should not like to risk the position of those who could thereby be disadvantaged. We are in a great dilemma. Those of us who are totally opposed to retrospection would like to put it to the vote. However, if perchance we have not fully persuaded your Lordships to vote with us—and no doubt the noble Baroness would indicate her view by nodding her head or otherwise—then I take it that the Government will not move their proposed amendment in the other place. I imagine that if we were to lose the vote nothing would be done. Perhaps the noble Baroness would indicate whether or not I am correct in that assumption?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am in this grave dilemma. There are people's interests involved here. On balance I have come to the conclusion that because there are people's interests which might be jeopardised—although I totally disagree with that interpretation of retrospection—and on the firm understanding that an amendment on the lines that I have proposed but with a different cut-off date will be introduced at the Commons consideration of this matter on Monday, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 12, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Power to give assistance]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 48, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) any other matter which is requisite for the purpose of establishing or maintaining activity providing employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come back again to urban regeneration grants, and my effort to insert something else into the clause about employment. The amendments reads:
"Any other matter which is requisite for the purpose of establishing or maintaining an activity providing employment".
The problems of the country's inner urban areas are now serious. Unemployment has grown from 9 per cent. in 1981 to 24 per cent. now and it is increasing. The depth of these areas' problems has been highlighted by frequent bursts of rioting over the last six years.
The local authorities in these areas have done everything in their power to promote development. In many ways their work has been similar to what is proposed in this Bill—the provision of factory premises, infrastructure and grants to improve buildings. The persistence of these areas' problems shows that this policy has been only partially successful. Experience suggests that something more than cash is needed to improve infrastructure, buildings and land. There is a crying need for financial support for employment generation. Ideally, the economic and physical regeneration of these areas should proceed together.
The inability of grants for physical regeneration alone to secure actual regeneration is clearly illustrated
668
by the reluctance of the private sector to take up urban development grants even when these are readily available. Indeed, some local authorities have actively advertised the availability of UDGs for their areas in the national press but this has still generated very little interest from the private sector. I fear that the availability of URGs introduced by this Bill will be no more successful in stimulating private sector interest in many of our less attractive urban areas. The absence of any private sector interest in building or renovating property in such areas will effectively mean that they will be unable to benefit from the availability of these grants.
I cannot help feeling that the Government are unaware that the United Kingdom is now two nations—North and South. The contrast between these two areas is epitomised by the differences between Liverpool and London. In the former the availability of grant support from the UDC to renovate dockland warehouses has done little to bring jobs to these buildings, most of which are empty. This has depressed the demand for property, and very little new building is taking place. On the other hand, in London the position is different. The surplus of enterprise coupled with the shortage of suitable property means that the demand for the URG will be fierce. These grants may end up being a way of fuelling the so-called "big bang" by ensuring that most of the available URGs go to building further dealing floors on Canary Wharf or flats for £60,000 a year on the banks of the Thames. Is this what the Government means by urban policy—that those who have should be given more, and those who have nothing should be starved?
In order to avoid the danger of an excessive geographical concentration in the uptake of this grant it is imperative to ensure that eligibility for the grant is drawn as widely as possible to encompass not only remedial works to buildings or improvements to infrastructure and land but any matter which is requisite for the promotion of employment. Such a widening of the eligibility criteria will ensure that the Secretary of State may additionally provide financial support to secure the growth of new businesses in these areas. This is needed to secure the growth of long term employment—real jobs. The type of "one-off-assistance that I have in mind is the provision of finance to enable firms with promising projects to obtain assistance for preparing business plans, employing temporary specialists on production, marketing or technical matters, and limited rate- or rent-free periods. The availability of this form of assistance, which is relatively cheap to provide, often makes the difference between life and death for a new start-up firm.
In limiting the availability of the grant to property-related developments, the Government ignore the fact that it is the use to which the property is put that is important. If new enterprise is supported it may in time create an effective demand for existing and new buildings and lead to the infrastructural improvements in these areas which the Government hope the grants will achieve. I believe the Government have provided support to the wrong side of the equation. What reasons have the Government given for opposing my amendment in the past? To date, a total of four reasons have been given. First, they argued that the

669
improvement of property and infrastructure will itself create jobs and so will the firms which ultimately occupy these premises. I agree that that will be so in the limited number or inner city areas which the private sector finds attractive. However, it will not be so in the less attractive urban areas. There, unemployment will be as high as it has always been, and development as sparse.
Secondly, it has been argued that it is not part of the DoE's remit to run an industrial employment policy. That is a dishonest argument. The DoE is responsible for, first, the Development Commission, which runs COSIRA and actively supports business development in rural areas. Secondly, the DoE is responsible for the existing UDCs on Merseyside and in London's docklands, which actively promote the industrial development of their areas. Thirdly, the department also administers the urban programme, which has a direct economic impact on firms in urban areas. In fact, the department already supports business advice and counselling centres for small firms through this programme. What is entailed by the amendment is well within the DoE's existing remit.
Thirdly, the Government argue that the amendment will duplicate the assistance given by the departments of Employment and Trade and Industry. That is not so. Those government departments do not provide the type of assistance which I mentioned earlier. They do not provide assistance for business plans, rent- or rate-free periods, or help to small firms wishing to employ technical consultants. Those departments more often than not refer firms requesting this type of assistance to local authorities who often do help. Local authorities in metropolitan areas are now suffering constraints under Section 137 and the demise of their local Act powers which restrict the amount of money they can allocate to economic development and to supporting these firms.
The fourth objection that has been put forward is that the broad amendment could be used to finance venture capital investment in firms, which is against the Government's ethos, though everybody else, including Business in the Community, believes that this is in short supply. I reiterate what I said during the Report stage: the Bill as currently drafted cannot be used to take equity in firms, though I have no doubt that the Minister may try to raise that old bogey again.
In using these arguments the Government have missed the whole point of my amendment; namely, that it will give the Minister the opportunity of fostering the development of all metropolitan areas by providing support both for physical regeneration and for the growth of business. The Secretary of State does not have to use these powers. I only wish them to be available so that he may use them should suitable projects be available which need such support and whose success would greatly benefit the inner urban areas. I hope that, having tried, tried and tried again, my third effort will be more successful. I hope that the Minister will this time smile on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as always, the intentions of the noble Baroness are admirable. However, I hope that she will not mind my saying what a pity I thought it was that she introduced the
670
North-South contrast argument which so often is heard from the Opposition Benches. I hope that, on reflection, she will realise the amount of damage done to the developing areas in the North by the placid assumption that while the South is prosperous the whole of the North is a devastated area.
There is no better way of discouraging industrialists who are contemplating where to put their plant than to tell them that a whole area of this country is in a hopelessly bad condition. It simply is not true. There are very considerable developments taking place in the North-East. There are splendid developments going on in Scotland. The noble Baroness quoted Liverpool, but quite frankly the way in which Liverpool and its city council has conducted its affairs is a self-inflicted wound and a special case. I agree with the noble Baroness that no sane industrialist would set up business in Liverpool, but that is not true of the whole of the North. It really is a great pity that someone with the authority of a spokesman—or perhaps I should say "spokesperson"—on the Bench opposite should give support to the thoroughly unsound and unsubstantiated North-South contrast.
As regards the terms of the amendment itself, I doubt whether they would do much harm, because if the noble Baroness looks at the beginning of the clause she will see that the crucial words are:
"with the consent of the Treasury".
If the Treasury were to play on any such proposal, it must have changed very radically indeed since the days when I had some connection with it. Therefore I do not think that if these words were to be included in the Bill they would have any effect. However, that is not an argument for putting them into the Bill. They are, in my view, unduly and excessively wide.
The amendment says:
"any other matter which is requisite for the purpose of establishing or maintaining an activity providing employment".
A pornographic bookshop provides employment and so, I understand, do the sex encounter establishments which in a recent Private Bill, Westminster City Council took powers to license. There are all kinds of thoroughly disreputable activities which provide employment. For the legislature to lay down that any activity—good, bad, indifferent, socially harmful or socially meritorious—should be brought within the scope of grant seems somewhat irresponsible. In my view, the various categories already in the clause are quite adequate. I very much hope that my noble friend will maintain that view as he did at an earlier stage.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his comments on what the noble Baroness said as regards devaluing the North. Part III of the Bill does exactly the opposite. Its purpose is to give my right honourable friend a comprehensive power to provide assistanc for the regeneration of the physical fabric of run-down urban areas wherever they might occur in the country. It was not intended to enable him to run training programmes or to provide start-up grants for firms or to arrange for business advice to people thinking of going into business on their own. There are already powers that are available for those purposes.

671
In her speech just now, the noble Baroness made the perfectly valid point that new or expanding firms often need assistance in preparing business plans or cashflow forecasts or obtaining specialist advice. At this late hour it would not be appropriate to debate the interesting questions raised by the noble Baroness, in moving the amendment, as to whether or not such assistance should be provided by government departments. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that there is already on the statute book a general power for the Secretary of State, and that means—this is an important point—any Secretary of State, to:
"make provision for the giving of advice…to persons carrying on or proposing to carry on a business".
That provision is to be found in Section 11 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and it is the provision which, for example, my noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment uses to operate the small firms service and to give grants to local enterprise agencies.
As regards business advice, the amendment of the noble Baroness would not give the Government any powers that they do not already possess. The reason Part III of the Bill is needed is that the Government do not at present have general power to assist expenditure on land and buildings. Thus Part III fills a gap in the existing powers. The amendment made to Clause 26 in another place was made to ensure that expenditure on land and buildings could be directed towards creating local employment opportunities—a matter which the noble Baroness and the Government hold very dear.
In my view, the real complaint of the noble Baroness is not that Part III, as it stands, is too narrowly drawn, but that the Government's existing powers to assist firms to provide business advice and to support enterprise have not been administered in quite such a flexible way as she would wish. As I have just said, this is something which we could quite readily debate for hours, but I do not think that it arises on this Bill. Once again, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am un-persuaded of the case for the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, it would seem that my third try has been no more successful than my earlier efforts in Committee and on Report. However, I rather resent the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, jumped on one comment that I made and really concentrated on it, which I thought was unfair. I think that almost anyone would agree that the South-East part of England is rather more prosperous than other areas of the country; and house prices would perhaps bear that out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that was not what the noble Baroness said. If she had said that, which is a perfectly sensible remark, there would have been no criticism.
Baroness David: My Lords, I did not think that I needed to spell it out, but I shall not pursue it.
I am very disappointed with the response because I think this would have been a useful addition to the
672
clause and might have meant that these grants were taken up more widely. However, at this time of night I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendnent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Hazardous substances—Scotland]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 70, line 12, leave out ("56") and insert ("56AA").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to make comparative effect in Scotland to the Report stage amendment that your Lordships agreed with the Government should be added to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act which involved a new section on exemption of ecclesiastical buildings. This was misnumbered in the original amendment and this amendment gets it right. I therefore beg to move.
Clause 54 [Discrimination in exercise of planning 'functions]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 102, line 42, after ("1971") insert ("and such other functions as may be prescribed")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week I tabled an amendment in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to make it unlawful for local planning authorities to practise racial discrimination in their planning functions. The House welcomed the amendment. However, that amendment referred only to planning functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. There are, however, provisions for other planning functions in other Acts, such as the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, not to mention the Electric Lighting Act 1909. This amendment covers the other planning Acts and I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No 17:
Page 103, line 2, after ("1973") insert ("and such other functions as may be prescribed")
Clause 56 [Commencement]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 104, line 17, leave out ("and 18") and insert (", 18 and 21").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple technical amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 1 [Consultation before disposal to private sector landlord]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
After Schedule 4:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Housing: minor and consequential amendments]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 129, line 8. leave out from ("In") to ("order") in line 10 and insert ("paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 11 and paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1985 (procedure after compulsory purchase")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, for which I apologise, makes a further minor correction of a mistake which was made in consolidating the law in the Housing Act 1985. The amendment puts the position back to what it was before the consolidation. I beg to move.
Schedule 9 [Listed buildings and conservation areas]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 179, line 11, leave out ("different").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Scottish amendment which brings the Scottish provisions fully into line with their English and Welsh counterparts. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
It was, I must confess, with some trepidation that I opened my mouth to speak on Amendment No. I in Committee on this Bill, only to have it snapped shut by your Lordships with a jar that nearly broke my teeth. My faith in human nature was immediately restored when the House agreed with the Government that it was no longer appropriate to use primary legislation to vary the discount structure which is an integral part of our right-to-buy policy.
I am mindful at this late hour of my remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady David, before we even got into Committee, that the House would be thoroughly bored by the sound of my voice by the end of the first day. Now, some 34½ hours of debate later I can only say that if indeed she felt that, she brought a certain amount of that boredom on herself. What is done however is done, and I am very glad that noble Lords in all parts of the House have made the Government think and think again about their actions.
I am especially pleased that noble Lords on this side of the House and on occasions those on the Cross-Benches and on other sides of the House found themselves able to support the Government on particular amendments.
I particularly remember the whole subject of listed buildings when my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Dilhorne helped me put my new responsibility in this subject into proper perspective. Naturally, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Rochester and the Bishop of London for helping the Government come to what we all hope will he a lasting peace on the subject of ecclesiastical exemption. I can claim no credit for this beyond being responsible at the end of a long chain of Ministers of differing political persuasions for actually getting
674
agreed changes on the statute book. Any credit that is due—and I believe it to be a great unsung story—belongs to my noble friend Lord Elton, whose work I merely continued and whose activities in government will I think be missed on all sides of the House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before we part with this Bill I must say one last thing. Nothing that I have done could have had a hope of succeeding without the invaluable help of my noble friend Lady Hooper, who displayed the astonishing ability to translate my often unformed thoughts first into words and then actions. My Lords I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Baroness David: My Lords, we are about to pass a Bill which is very different from the one which was brought from the Commons on 1st May. No fewer than 17 new clauses have been added (the seventeenth having been added this afternoon) as well as two new schedules. In addition, there have been substantial amendments to very many clauses and schedules. We had 354 amendments to discuss at Committee stage-80 per cent. of them from the Government—100 at Report stage, and 24 today. The result has been a very hard three weeks for all concerned with the Bill—I include the staff of the Public Bill Office—without the proper interval of two weekends between Committee and Report stage and without the usual three sitting days between Report stage and Third Reading.
I hope the Government are grateful for the Opposition's co-operation in all this. But I would suggest that this is no way to legislate. The Bill, as I said, reached the House on 1st May. We did not have Second Reading until 30th July, three whole months later, with the result that we have been under intolerable pressure these last weeks with very inadequate time to consider and consult on government amendments and, indeed, to consider and decide on our own. I think it is right to complain of the overcrowded, overladen legislative programme that the Government have imposed on us this Session; it has been legislation that was ill-thought out originally, with drafting a running process.
This point was discussed yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, asked his Starred Question and the feelings of your Lordships from all sides of the House were very clear. This Bill, certainly so far as concerns the housing clauses, is based very firmly on the doctrinaire thinking and ideology of the Government, with the implications not fully taken into account.
I admit there have been some improvements to the Bill, notably the acceptance by the House of Clause 1, extending the exceptions to the right to buy in respect of dwellinghouses for persons of pensionable age. I am very grateful for the all-party support this clause had. Of course I hope that the very strong feelings about the proper provision of rented accommodation for the increasing number of elderly in our society will be recognised by the Government and that they will leave the clause as it stands.

675
The Government have introduced the consultation clause and the schedule (Clause 6 and Schedule 1), as promised by the Minister at Report stage in another place. It would be ungracious not to be grateful for that. But from our repeated and pertinacious efforts at every stage, alas unsuccessful, to improve the schedule, it is clear we are not satisfied that adequate protection has been given to tenants before their homes are either sold to private developers or given over to be managed by private agents.
The vast amount of correspondence and representations we have had on the subject shows how strongly the tenants themselves feel, how dissatisfied they are and how distrustful they are of the promises made by developers. We are particularly disappointed that the right to a public inquiry when a substantial proportion of the tenants are dissatisfied and worried has not been agreed, thus treating public sector tenants in an entirely different way from those living in privately-owned property, who have the right if their homes are to be compulsorily purchased for slum clearance or highway development. We shall of course be collecting evidence on how things work out in practice and how the rights of tenants (about which the Minister seems so confident) are affected under new landlords and new management; and this applies too to what will happen when the new towns are wound up and the houses disposed of.
My noble friend Lady Nicol would have commented on the planning side of the Bill, but unfortunately she is ill today. She would have thanked the Government for the amended clause on opencast coal working and for the new Clause 54, dealing with discrimination by planning authorities. She is disappointed that there was not a more positive response to our amendments and particularly to the one that would have provided additional safeguards to SSSIs yet to be notified or renotified. If the Government are to assume a green image, as we are being led to believe, it would have been an opportunity for them to show their new image and their good intentions. As regards SPZs, we must hope that our fears are unjustified and that they will generate activity and employment and that democratic local control will not be passed by entirely.
I am sorry that the good sense shown in accepting that a new clause was needed to make unlawful discrimination in the exercise of planning functions was not followed by acceptance of the fact that racial harassment should be a ground for eviction. There is a great and very urgent need for action here. I believe the Minister recognises the problem and the need. I think it was a very great shame and pity that in the many months that the Bill has been passing through Parliament the Government have not found a way of doing something to allay the fears and despair of a great many of our fellow countrymen. I was about to say that I am similarly disappointed that we have not persuaded the Government to put back the law in relation to the homeless; but we have—we did that today. I did not think that we should win that and I am delighted that we did so.
I come back to what I said at Second Reading: that this Bill, in spite of its length and of its title, is a
676
gigantic irrelevance in face of the actual situation in the country today. Its provisions do nothing to combat the crisis in housing which this country faces. With local authority waiting lists of over 1 million, and increasing all the time; with new housebuilding in the public sector falling from 133,000 completions in 1975 to 33,000 ten years later in 1985; and with the condition of the housing stocks, public and private, deteriorating and totally inadequate funds going into making improvements, the situation is desperate. The only expenditure on housing that is going up is that on bed and breakfast accommodation; and that is an absolutely ridiculous and wasteful use of resources that the local authorities, if allowed, could spend on creating new homes.
We are not happy with the Bill. However, I must end on a conciliatory note and say that in directing the Bill through Committee, Report and Third Reading the Minister had a huge and gruelling task which he undertook with good humour and great stamina. I congratulate him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who ably assisted him, on their performance and endurance. I should also like to thank my own noble friends on the Back Benches, and indeed friends on other Benches who have given great support to my noble friends Lord Dean of Beswick and Lady Nicol and myself, for their invaluable help and encouragement.
7 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord the Minister, the noble Baroness and the officials for the most efficient and courteous way in which they have handled this very wide-ranging and complicated Bill. This is the first Bill that I have followed through the House, and I have been most impressed by the efficiency with which so many detailed points have been covered and also by the very considerable stamina which has been required by all concerned with the Bill.
I remain concerned about three matters in the Bill. The Bill sets out to increase the sales of council properties to tenants. Sales of houses will bring much-needed help to their maintenance from the non-bureaucratic private, do-it-yourself sectors. This I applaud. But the same does not apply to high-rise flats where the mix of private and council tenants may well complicate the arrangements over major structural repairs which may become necessary after the five-year initial period, when private owners may not be able to pay their share and when do it yourself would not be appropriate.
Secondly, on the sales of tenanted properties to the private sector, I remain concerned as to what happens to tenants if their new (or indeed subsequent) landlord goes "bust". I understand that the financial standing of the purchaser from the council will be checked by the Secretary of State; but would he, or indeed the tenants, have any say in any subsequent sale to a third party? I understand the point that the rights of the tenants will be preserved through these transactions, but these rights will not be of much use if their landlord is a liquidator with no money. How does the liquidator sell on a property that may become a liability rather than an asset because the necessity for substantial structural repair would become apparent? With some of the

677
high-rise developments, such a possibility is not remote. Perhaps automatic return to the council at nil value in such circumstances would be a solution.
Lastly, I urge the noble Lord the Minister not to be badgered into increasing the amount proposed as the minimum sum for substantial improvements to properties to permit assured tenancies. The amount actually needed to bring the property up to a proper, fit and lettable standard should be decided by the approved landlord. Too high a figure may well make the necessary level of rent too high for prospective tenants.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before we finally commit the Bill out of this House, perhaps I may briefly indicate my support for the sentiments expressed by my colleagues behind me, my noble friends Lady David and Lord Davies. I am not too sure, and never have been convinced, that the Bill will achieve what the Government think it will achieve in increasing the sale of council property and that type of thing. I still have one area of deep concern; that is, the question of the rights of tenants in the consultative process. Although the Government carried the day, I think that the size of your Lordships' vote against the proposal is indicative of a great deal of concern still in that area. Only time will tell how it will work out.
However, having said that, I do not think that in praising his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the Minister should in any way devalue his own performance on this Bill. He took over this Bill at a very difficult time. I agree with my noble friend Lady David that we were all lacking in time to deal with the Bill, but that was no fault of the Minister concerned. He acquitted himself excellently, at short notice and with good humour, on a very difficult problem, with the kind of conduct that we all expected from him. I am grateful for the way in which he dealt with some of the points that I raised, though I do not think that I won too much from him. I should like to thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for the way they have conducted the Bill. As I have said, only time will tell whether or not it is a success.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that all that remains for me to do at this very late hour is to stop blushing and to commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
7.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Health and safety legislation]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. A1, I should point out that in its penultimate line as printed in the Marshalled List the word "instructions" should read "instruments".
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. A1:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("(1A) In this section—
"health authority"—
(a) as respects England and Wales, has the meaning assigned to it by section 128 of the 1977 Act; and
(b) as respects Scotland, means a Health Board constituted under section 2 of the 1978 Act, the Common Services Agency constituted under section 10 of that Act or a State Hospital Management Committee constituted under section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and
"the health and safety legislation" means
(a) the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the regulations, orders and other instruments in force under it; and
(b) the enactments specified in the third column of Schedule 1 to that Act and the regulations, orders and other instruments in force under those enactments.".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage your Lordships approved an amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, which had the effect of widening the clause to include the removal of Crown immunity from health authorities in respect of health and safety legislation. As Clause 2 presently stands, it is not enforceable. The Government recognise the concerns which were expressed by the Committee and I am therefore moving Amendment No. A1 and speaking to Amendments Nos. B1 and C1 in order to ensure the desired result.
Clause 2 of this Bill as it stands would remove Crown immunity from health authorities—a term which is undefined—in respect of unspecified health and safety legislation. It would provide power to make regulations to modify that legislation. The first amendment seeks to define the appropriate legislation, to define the health authorities affected, to delete the regulation-making powers and to limit the application of the clause to events occurring after its commencement. Amendment No. A1 defines health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland in the same way as in Clause 1. Your Lordships are already aware, I hope, of a misprint in the penultimate line, and the word "instructions" should read "instruments".
Amendment No. A1 also identifies the relevant legislation as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, regulations made under Part I of the Act and the relevant statutory provisions which are specified in Schedule 1 of the Act (which were Acts in existence at the time of the passing of the 1974 Act), including any regulations, orders or other instruments in force under those Acts.
Subsections (2) to (5) seek to provide powers for regulations to determine who should be treated as occupier or owner of health authority premises for the purposes of health and safety legislation and also to modify health and safety legislation in its application to health authorities, as appropriate. While it is necessary to take such powers in respect of food legislation under Clause 1, the necessary powers already exist in respect of health and safety legislation in Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The second amendment therefore seeks to remove the duplicate powers.
Clause 1(8) provides that the removal of Crown immunity under food legislation would have no effect

679
on anything done or omitted before its commencement. We think that a similar provision is necessary in relation to the removal of Crown immunity in respect of health and safety legislation. The first amendment, by inserting a new subsection to that effect, seeks to achieve that. This amendment, together with Amendments Nos. B1 and C1 to Clause 2, would preserve the intention of the clause to remove Crown immunity from health authorities. Without these amendments, I am advised that Clause 2 would not have the effect desired by the sponsors. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, let me first say how much I welcome Amendment No. A1, which has been proposed by the noble Baroness, and, beyond that, that I think the whole House will appreciate the way in which the Government have handled the decision taken at Committee stage. It was quite clear then that there was strong feeling on all sides, and this is how our system works. I congratulate the noble Baroness, and indeed her noble friend the Leader of the House, on ensuring that this was not a matter passed to the other place and then thrown back and forth at the end of the Session.
I am quite certain that there was a strong feeling expressed that here was a clause that was only half a clause. It has now been completely put right, and I can do no more than thank the noble Baroness. It is quite clear from what she said that the amendments which have now been tabled have tidied up the amendment that was carried by a substantial majority in Committee. Therefore, I advise my noble friends and everyone else in the House who supported the amendment that we carried last time to support this amendment which the noble Baroness has, I believe, so generously moved.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to add our appreciation of what the noble Baroness has done. My name was associated with that of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in the amendment, as was the name of my noble friend Lord Winstanley.
It was a remarkable debate and a debate in which, as so often happens in this House, people listened to the arguments. I recall that even the doubts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, were stilled and that he joined us in the final vote, as did the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. That is one of the best expressions of this House listening to the arguments and drawing the right conclusions. On this occasion also we have to congratulate the Government on having accepted the decision and done some tidying up in order to bring the new provision into operability. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Baroness for a very satisfactory outcome.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, may I ask one question of the noble Baroness? I understand that for a very long time now the Health and Safety Commission has been absolutely in favour of doing away with the exemptions from the provision relating to prosecutions and notices. Is the noble Baroness
680
satisfied that the wording she is proposing meets the Commission's policy, which has consistently favoured removal of exemptions since they were first considered in 1977?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point, and, yes, I am satisfied.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am very grateful.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. B1 and C1:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsections (2) to (5).
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("(7) This section shall have no effect in relation to anything done or omitted before its commencement.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Clause 3 [Pharmaceutical services]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. I:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from ("granted") to ("secure") in line 23, and insert:—
("unless the Committee is satisfied, in accordance with the regulations, that it is necessary or desirable to refuse it, having considered the application and all relevant circumstances, including in particular the opinion of the Committee of any need to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe with this amendment we can take Amendment No. 3, which seeks to apply the same principle to Scotland. It is a simple amendment. The issue was touched upon during the debate at Committee stage but I have tabled it in a different form on this occasion.
If we recognise that there will come into existence a committee in each locality which will determine whether a licence shall be granted to a pharmacist to have an NHS contract, if we accept that—however much some of your Lordships may disagree—the question is on whom should be the onus of proof. Should it he a situation in which a contract shall not be granted unless, or should it be a situation in which a contract shall be granted unless? What I am seeking to do in this amendment, together with Amendment No. 3, is tomove the onus of proof from the applicant to the committee so that the committee would need to say why the pharmacist should not be allowed to operate, as has happened throughout 40 years of the National Health Service.
It seems to me that it would be better if that onus were to be transferred so that the presumption would be that an appropriately qualified pharmacist applying for an NHS contract would be granted it unless there were necessary or desirable reasons why it should be refused. The amendments would not take away any of the powers the committee would have but would require it to give good reasons why such a pharmacist should not be established, rather than simply leaving the responsibility on the applicant with the

681
assumption that the application will not be accepted unless full and satisfactory proof is given to the committee.
I think that at present, as proposed by the Government, the Bill is too heavily weighted against the applicant and I do not want to see it weighted heavily against the pharmacist who wishes to establish himself, if it is appropriate. Of course the committee would have a right to say that it is not appropriate, but I believe that the pharmacist should have an opportunity to seek and get a contract unless there are necessary or desirable reasons to refuse it. As I said, this does not in any way affect the powers of the committee to refuse if there are good and logical reasons for doing so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government oppose these amendments, because they are not necessary and because the present provision is clear in its purpose and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is concerned that the Bill as drafted puts the onus on the applicant to show to the family practitioner committee's satisfaction that it is necessary or desirable for the application to be granted. That is not the case. There will be an onus on the applicant to prepare his application in the most effective way to maximise his chances of success. There is nothing out of the ordinary in that, but there will also be a different type of onus on the FPC subcommittee that considers the application.
The members of the sub-committee will be responsible for satisfying themselves as to whether it is necessary or desirable to grant the application in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood—or, I could say, whether it is necessary or desirable to refuse it. It would be for the FPC sub-committee to consider relevant issues such as the present level of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood and the ease of access to those services. FPCs are charged with planning local primary care services. The work of the FPC sub-committees deciding applications for new contracts will be carried out in the context of those planning responsibilities. It will be the FPC's responsibility to ensure an adequate provision of services.
As your Lordships are well aware, if the applicant is unhappy about the decision, he or she can appeal. That is the most important safeguard for the applicant and the one that really matters. I think I can best sum up by saying that a distinction that makes no difference is not really a distinction at all. I hope that I have allayed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and satisfied him that it is not our intention to place any unfair onus upon the applicant. I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right in saying that the amendment is unnecessary, in that the Bill as it now stands is clear. However, while it may be unnecessary from that point of view, there could be a way in which the amendment, although not necessary for the purpose of clarity, is plainly desirable because of the different flavour it gives to the whole exercise upon which we embark. The amendment would alter the presumption. The
682
presumption would be that an application would be granted; whereas the Bill makes the presumption that the application would be refused. I should have thought that in the present situation, where there has been widespread anxiety among pharmacists and particularly among young pharmacists and those who are still studying and thinking of going into practice, an alteration in words—which the noble Baroness herself has said does not in any way destroy the Bill or its purpose—making the intent of the Bill more acceptable to young pharmacists not yet in National Health Service practice would be desirable.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for supporting me, because he has said better than I did what I wanted to say. I am not going to press this matter to a vote, but I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this point because I know there are many pharmacists who feel that the Bill in its present form will act against them and against their opportunities as entrepreneurs who wish to develop and use their skills in the community. Although it is a modest amendment, I should like to think that the noble Baroness could give at least a little thought to this before we come to the final stage, which will be at Third Reading. I have no intention of pressing this to a vote this evening.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may have the last word on this. There is no presumption against new applications in the Bill as drafted. By phrasing the relevant provision in a negative rather than a positive way—"refuse" rather than "grant"—the onus would revert back to the decision-making body and I think any fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are groundless for the reasons which I gave earlier.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if I may have the permission of the House, tabling the amendment was worth while in order to get the assurance from the noble Baroness that there would be no weighting against the applicant for a licence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I do something rather unconventional? We may take a bit more time on this group of amendments and, although it is not really my job to do so, I wonder whether your Lordships would like to break during pleasure until 8.30. Would it be very awful of me to suggest this or would your Lordships perhaps agree with me? If you do not disagree, may I put it to your Lordships that we should adjourn for an hour and return—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I suggest that this is an occasion when we do not need to have a long adjournment? I do not think this debate will last a very long time and an adjournment of an hour may keep us all up later than need be. I suspect that after this amendment the debate will not be a long one and I should like to think that some of us could eat at home instead of here. If the noble Baroness wishes to press the case, I suggest an adjournment of half an hour.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel that it would be for the benefit not only of some Members of this House but also of members of the staff if we adjourned now. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.15 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8.15 p.m.].
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 3.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
("() for applications to which this subsection relates to be determined only by persons who are not specified upon any list under paragraph (a) hereof and by employees of such persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before we were interrupted I was about to make a very brief statement, by saying that if I correctly understand the purport of Amendment No. 2B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I think I can contribute to an abbreviation of our discussions by refraining from moving Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and myself, while perhaps reserving my position if we are not fully satisfied by her exposition. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will understand why I am speaking mainly to my Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C at this stage of any debate on Clause 3—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with respect, I understand that Amendment No. 2A has not yet been called.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that I can explain myself away, if the noble Lord Lord Ennals, will allow me. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hams, has moved Amendment No. 2—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with great respect, I thought he said that he would not move either Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 4 and that he would contribute to the debate which is about to commence. Under that supposition, the next amendment to be taken is No. 2A. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Harris, can clarify the position.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that he reserved his position upon what I was going to say to your Lordships and that he had not withdrawn his amendment. If I have it wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will say so.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, is it possible for me to exercise the option of re-activating the amendment if the declaration by the Minister on her Amendment No. 2B is not as I understand it to be: that is, on the whole to give us what we wanted, which was to prevent the chemist contractors or their employees on the sub-committees from taking part in the exclusion of applicants to set-up chemists shops?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is my understanding that we have to decide quite rightly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, what we are going to do with Amendment No. 2. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has not withdrawn Amendment No. 2. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has to give us his intentions as to what he wants to do with Amendment No. 2.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I shall withdraw it in this case and listen to the noble Baroness with close attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) for applications to which this subsection relates to be determined by a Sub-Committee consisting of seven persons (including a chairman) appointed by the Family Practitioners Committee of whom three (including the Nominee of the Community Health Council for the district) shall not be registered medical or dental practitioners or pharmacists or employees of such persons) and the remaining three may be registered pharmacists provided they are not specified upon any list under paragraph (a) hereof and employees of such persons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has asked me to move the amendment standing in his name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. It is linked and it may be for the convenience of the House if we take with it Amendment No. 2B, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, something called Amendment No. 2C, which I do not fully understand, and Amendment No. 4. No doubt the noble Baroness will explain when her turn comes; it is always difficult to know whose turn it is.
Before explaining the purpose of the proposal I should like to say that I very much agree that by tabling Amendment No. 2B the noble Baroness has gone a long way towards meeting the concerns that were expressed in the House. For mercies, which are not small in this case, I am extremely grateful. I shall want to put some questions to the noble Baroness about it, although I accept that there is a good deal of common ground.
The proposal contained in Amendment No. 2A is simpler and more comprehensible. So far as I know, there is no other place in the Bill in which the composition of the committee is set out. There have been a great many references to there being a committee of six, of which one is chairman, three are lay members and three are to be something else. It is the nature of the something else that we are debating.
It was argued in Committee that it would be wrong for those who are contracting pharmacists to be involved in deciding whether or not an applicant should be granted a licence through the NHS. It would smack of—and could often involve—someone protecting his own business interests, which I do not think any of us would want to see. This has been substantially recognised by the noble Baroness in her amendment. I shall want to reserve my judgment, as will the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, until the noble Baroness has given the explanation of the proposal before us. Perhaps I may give my explanation

685
first and then we shall see where the common ground is and what we should do.
If Amendment No. 2A were to be accepted by the Government, we would have a committee of seven, with a lay chairman, and including three lay representatives, one of whom would be appointed by the community health council. We would have three professionals, all of whom could be pharmacists or some of whom could be pharmacists. In any case they would be appointed by the family practitioner committee. But they would not be contracting pharmacists. They might be pharmacists who are working in the health service; they might be pharmacists who are working in industry; or they might be of another profession; although I think most people would feel it right that they should be registered pharmacists—but not contracting pharmacists. So the purpose of the amendment is to establish that the three professionals shall not be contracting pharmacists and therefore would not be in a position to be seen to be protecting their own commercial interests.
If it were to be the case—and I wait to hear what the noble Baroness says—that the three professionals, whether or not they are contracting pharmacists, were not given the right to vote, the decision then would be taken by four; namely, the chairman and three lay people. That seems a rather small group of people to be taking the decision. What would be the role of the three pharmacists or others appointed by the family practitioner committee sitting on the committee? Would they be expected to leave at the moment of decision? I do not know, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say.
But as things are at the moment and until I hear her explanation, I feel that it is more sensible to set out the structure clearly, as this amendment does, and to ensure that all members of the committee can vote but none can benefit in any way as a result of his participation in the decision-making process. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, once more unto the breach. I should like to confine my remarks mainly to Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C because I cannot help feeling that if I spend a little time now on the explanation of those amendments, as both the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Ennals, suggest, first, your Lordships will realise that we have covered the various worries expressed at Committee stage, and, secondly, you will be convinced that Amendments Nos. 2A and 4 are not appropriate and would not be welcomed by the Government. Therefore, before speaking to Amendments Nos. 2A and 4, perhaps I may put forward our proposals in Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C.
In Committee I agreed to look again at the role of the pharmacist in the consideration of applications for NHS pharmacy contracts. This amendment reflects careful thought within Government on the views expressed by noble Lords from all sides in Committee and the Government's considered position on the right role for contractor pharmacists in both the FPC subcommittee that will make decisions on applications for new NHS pharmacy contracts and in the bodies that will hear any appeals against those decisions. Its effect
686
is to confine the right to take decisions on new pharmacy contract applications to sub-committee or appeal body members who are not already in possession of, or as employees benefiting from, an existing NHS pharmacy contract.
The amendment therefore meets the main point that was raised by your Lordships in debate of the relevant provision of what is now Clause 3 of the Bill; but perhaps I may explain in a little more detail what the Government have in mind. We do not intend any alteration in the size of the sub-committee or the appeal body, which in both cases will remain at six members (excluding a lay chairman). Of the six members, three will be appointed by FPCs and may not be registered pharmacists; the other three will be pharmacists. Of those three pharmacists, two will be contractor pharmacists whose role, if this amendment is carried—as I certainly hope it will be—will be purely advisory. They will not vote on applications; and will indeed he required to withdraw from the proceedings before the sub-committee or the appeal body reaches its decision on the application. The third pharmacy member at both levels will not be an existing contractor-holder, but will be appointed from a list of nominees provided by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (the ethical body for the whole profession) from other branches of the profession than community pharmacy.
The amendment does not of itself preclude this third pharmacist from having a vote or from taking part in the final decision on applications. The Government will consider further whether it would be right for this third, non-contractor pharmacist to be purely advisory or whether he or she should be part of the voting and decision-taking membership. We shall make an appropriate provision one way or the other in the regulations to be made under this clause once the Bill is enacted.
I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that this amendment meets the major anxiety expressed in Committee—to exclude from actual decisions on new applications those who, fairly or unfairly, might be thought to have a vested interest in the outcome. The Government are satisfied that this is the right course, and that the decision-making structure we now envisage will fairly reflect the interests of local communities in the provision of new NHS pharmacy services, and of pharmacy in its wider professional sense. Contractor pharmacists will remain involved, to offer advice from their own perspective on local pharmaceutical needs. This advice will be important and valuable: but contractor pharmacists will not be able to take part in actual decisions.
The Government are also satisfied that these arrangements do not undermine the principle or the value of limiting the grant of new NHS pharmacy contracts to those which are necessary or desirable. Our assessment remains that FPC sub-committees and appeal bodies will take responsible and informed decisions which balance the NHS's and the taxpayer's interests in restraining NHS pharmacy costs with the need for good local access to services. I make it crystal clear that we would not accept any change which diverted us from the long-term objectives of the new arrangement taken overall. These are: a better distribution of services; a stronger profession, better

687
able to meet the challenges set by the Nuffield Inquiry into the future role of pharmacy; and more cost-effective mechanisms for influencing pharmacy distribution, involving not just the entry limitation arrangements with which Clause 3 is concerned, but the new remuneration structure fully negotiated with the pharmacists' representatives, which backs up the entry limitation with price incentives to efficient pharmacy provision.
I appreciate that some pharmacy interests may regret the loss of the contractor vote; but hope that they will see the issue in its wider perspective, and will accept that the package negotiated on their behalf remains intact and valuable. I take the opportunity, in passing, of dissociating the Government from some of the rather harsh comments made in Committee about the PSNC. The pharmacists' negotiators were, in our view, both effectively and responsibly led in the long negotiations which resulted in a package that will serve the interests of both profession and public.
I should like also to mention two other respects in which, by regulations in due course, we intend to clarify the composition of the FPC sub-committees and appeal bodies which will deal with applications for new pharmacies. In the first place, we intend to exclude dispensing doctors from participation; and, secondly, we intend to ensure that no more than one of the three non-pharmacy voting members can be filled by any single FPC contractor profession other than pharmacy—so that no more than one of these places could be filled by, for example, a prescribing doctor or a dentist. This will help to ensure that the interests of the consumer will be still further strengthened; and that the withdrawal of the contractor pharmacists' votes will not create any problems of balance between the different contracting professions.
I have gone into these points in some detail because I know that your Lordships attach importance to them. In summary, what we propose through these amendments and subsequent regulations will provide a fair balance of advice and influence between the profession of pharmacy, the consumer and other health care professions.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 4, which applies to Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will realise that the same points which apply to Amendment No. 2, now withdrawn, have already been dealt with. This also applies to Amendment No. 2A, with the exception of the matter of the community health councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised some points and I shall answer the one regarding the detailed composition of sub-committees and appeal bodies for regulators. Government Amendment No. 2B specifies that no contractor pharmacist can have votes, but the government amendment does not preclude non-contractor pharmacists from voting.
The other point arising from the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, concerns the role of the community health councils. I should point out to the noble Lord that their role is advisory and it would not be right to bring them within a decision-making process of this kind particularly when, as I mentioned in Committee, they will have both the right to give
688
their views on applications and the right to promote appeals if dissatisfied with the first decision of the FPC. I hope that my amendments are agreeable to your Lordships.
Lord Kislmarnock: My Lords, may I say a few words as my name is attached to Amendment No. 2A? I think we are all agreed that the noble Baroness has attempted to pay attention to the disquiet which was expressed on all sides of the Committee about the composition of the sub-committee. I put my name to this amendment because having seen the draft amendment which the noble Baroness tabled, which she kindly sent to me last night, I had one concern. It seemed to me on a straight first reading of her amendment that if the three contractor pharmacists have no vote one reduces the voting power to four. If someone fell out through illness, or some other reason, the sub-committee would be down to three; and with a disagreement between two of those members there would have to be a casting vote by the chairman. That appeared to me to be a very small voting body to take decisions, and that is why I associated myself with the noble Lord. Lord Prys-Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
However, if I understand the noble Baroness right, she now states—although this does not appear in the amendment and, therefore, will not appear in the Bill—that it is envisaged that the pharmacist representation should consist of two contractors who will not have votes and one pharmacist who is not a contractor who will be nominated by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, who presumably will have a vote. That will give a voting body of five out of a total committee of seven. I hope that that is the right interpretation of what the noble Baroness said.
If that is the case, can the noble Baroness assure me—for, although this is due to come forward in regulations, I repeat, it will not be in the Bill—that it is the intention there will always be one outside non-contracting pharmacist who will have a vote in order to ensure that there will be a voting power of five on the committee? I should be glad to have that assurance because it is perhaps a slightly more acceptable proposition than what I had envisaged from my first reading of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
I am still not at all sure that it would not be better to have a voting committee of seven, on the lines of Amendment No. 2A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. After all, pharmacists who are not contractors but who are working in industry or in some other field of pharmacy are likely to have the interests of the profession at heart; indeed, they may well want to open a pharmacy themselves one day. Therefore, it would appear to me that the pharmaceutical profession would have an adequate input but with a voting body of seven on the committee, which I believe is preferable. I should very much like to have clarification on those points from the noble Baroness.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I do not wish to go over the ground so admirably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals and my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock,

689
but I should like to go a little further into the point briefly dealt with by the noble Baroness concerning the community health councils. The noble Baroness told the House that the precise composition of the subcommittees will be dealt with by regulation. One accepts that, but it is clear that in dealing with it by regulation the Government will have powers to take certain steps. The noble Baroness said that she felt it would be inappropriate to include on the subcommittee a nominee of the community health council for the district, as referred to in Amendment No. 2A because, as she rightly said, the community health councils are advisory bodies and therefore it would be wrong to place them in a position in which they had an executive function. But the amendment of the noble Baroness puts on the committee people who do precisely that. They are to have no vote and are not to take any part in the decisions but they are to give advice.
We should all like to know that the community health council would be consulted. I think many of us feel that while the views of pharmacists are important, the views of practising pharmacists in the particular area are important too. There are many factors which will have to be taken into consideration by the committees. I should have thought that the view of the community in the district should be paramount.
If we are to understand that the community health council will be free to give its advice—and of course we understand that—is it not utterly clear that the community health council would give its advice if it had a member on the sub-committee? Can the noble Baroness tell us whether in the regulations which will appear subsequently, dealing with the composition of the sub-committee, consideration will be given to some kind of representation of the customer, as it were? I can imagine no one better able to do that than the community health council.
With regard to the points dealt with by my noble friend and other noble Lords concerning votes and how many voices it will contain, and so on, from my knowledge of family practitioner matters and subcommittees it is my belief that in reality it will be very rare to find a case pushed to a vote in which there is an acute division within the sub-committee. I think that, after consultation and discussion of the local needs and a proper consideration of the various factors, in the vast majority of cases these committees will reach a unanimous decision and we shall not have a great deal of trouble with narrow votes. I personally should be a little more happy about the decisions that they will reach if I were satisfied that in the decision-taking process somewhere, if not in the final vote, there will be heard the voice of the consumer; that is, the patient or the person who will go to the pharmacist if the pharmacist is subsequently allowed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to deal immediately with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. First of all, the community health councils will be perfectly at liberty—and I hope that they will do so—to put an input into the family practitioner sub-committee on this subject before the sub-committee ever meets to consider the necessity or otherwise for a future pharmacy. There is no question that they do not have
690
that role in an advisory capacity; but the other aspect of their role means that if they do not like the decision which the sub-committee has taken they can appeal against the sub-committee's decision. They cannot have it all ways. You really cannot also expect them to sit on a sub-committee against whose decision they may wish to appeal. It simply does not make sense. When he comes to consider that, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will see that my point has substance.
Let me go back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and also—if I can read his mind—those probably in the mind of the noble.Lord, Lord Ennals. It would be very difficult to find three non-contractor pharmacists who are able and willing to sit on so many committees, with perhaps as many as 200 applications a year, not counting any possible appeals—though I must say that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is right in his hopes of there being few appeals and that it will be a matter of local common sense. For instance, community pharmacists—contractors—constitute two-thirds of the profession. In any case, it is not reasonable to expect that hospital or industrial pharmacists will be available on the scale implied in the amendment. It is important that local contractor pharmacists can advise on local pharmaceutical issues which they know better than hospital or industrial pharmacists. Therefore I feel that the Government have the best solution. I can assure your Lordships that we have consulted upon it and have worked very hard over it.
With regard to the vote from the non-contractor pharmacist, as I said originally, the Government's mind is open on this matter. Unless noble Lords take a different view, we shall be disposed to consider sympathetically the idea of allowing the non-contractor pharmacists to vote when we come to make the regulations as I said in my opening remarks.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly to thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for introducing Amendment No. 2B. I must say that it seems to me the balance of argument between Amendments Nos. 2A and 2B is really very fine. For my part, I should be entirely happy to take my noble friend's preference for Amendment No. 2B.
All I really want to say is that I personally very much appreciate the trouble that she has taken to meet the anxieties which were expressed in Committee and indeed on the corresponding Scottish legislation last year. I think that Amendment No. 2B certainly goes a very long way to relieve the anxieties that some of us expressed. I should like to apologise to my noble friend for giving her a certain amount of trouble and heartburn on this matter and to thank her very much for what in the end she has produced.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, in congratulating the noble Baroness, and to thank her for purging Clause 3 of one of its most obnoxious elements, which in my view invited pharmacist contractors to allow their commercial interests to override their professional principles. To that extent, I believe that the clause will be less objectionable.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as I did at the beginning in moving Amendment No. 2A, I should again like to thank the noble Baroness for the amendment which she has tabled, and also now for the explanation that she has given. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord BruceGardyne, that one could argue one way or the other. I think the main point is that the noble Baroness has met the concern expressed at Committee stage that it would appear, and in fact could be the case, that people would be protecting their own commercial interests. Obviously I should like to read again carefully the explanation given by the noble Baroness in case there is some need to return for further clarification at a later stage in this Bill, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 2B I should point out that there is an unnumbered amendment following Amendment No. 2B on page 3 of the Marshalled List. The amendment refers to page 6, line 42, and should be numbered 2C. It may also help to clarify matters if I point out that Amendments Nos. 2B, 2C, 3, 4 and 5 have been marshalled in the wrong order and will be called as follows: Amendments Nos. 2B, 3, 4 2C and 5.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 2B:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("(5) The regulations shall be so framed as to preclude—

(a) a person included in a list published under subsection (2)(a) above; and

(h) an employee of such a person;

from taking part in the decision whether an application such as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above should be granted or an appeal against such a decision brought by virtue of subsection (4) above should be allowed.").
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) for applications to which this subsection relates to be determined only by persons who are not specified upon any list under paragaph (a) hereof and by employees of such persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is paired with Amendment No. 2 and just refers to the amendment of the Scottish Act. Therefore it is not moved.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 2C:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("(6) The regulations shall be so framed as to preclude—

(a) person included in a list published under subsection (3)(a) above; and

(b) an employee of such a person;

from taking part in the decision whether an application such as is mentioned in subsection (3)(c) above should be granted or an appeal against such a decision brought by virtue of subsection (5) above should be allowed.").
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 45, at end, insert—
("(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 42 of the 1977 Act and subsection (2) of section 27 of the 1978 Act, it shall be lawful for registered pharmacists to provide from premises registered for the provision of pharmaceutical services drugs, medicines or appliances pursuant to prescriptions issued by medical and dental practitioners on payment by the Secretary of State for the drugs, medicines or appliances so provided but not by any person for the service of so providing them, whether or not such registered pharmacists carry on business pursuant to any entry on a list under those two sections, and the Secretary of State shall cause any necessary financial or other arrangements to be made to facilitate the implementation of this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, which at first blush seems a little complicated, I should like to explain its effect as follows. The amendment will allow any qualified pharmacist to set up in approved premises to carry on business as a chemist and to dispense National Health Service prescriptions but to be reimbursed only for the drugs, medicines and appliances without claiming a professional fee.
The amendment would have considerable advantages for the NHS, the taxpayer and the customer. It would not discourage the new business ventures which the noble Lord, Lord Young, among others, wishes to spread. It would avoid the strictures of the Office of Fair Trading; it would diminish the bitterness between contractors over the blocking of new entrants; it would avoid litigation over possible wrongful exclusions of applications for new contracts; it would prevent leap-frogging; it would leave open the way for progressive developments in retailing; and at the same time it would save public funds and improve services to the consumer. What more can the noble Baroness ask?
The House must bear with me if I return to the source of much of our anguish over the Bill. The special feature of the pharmaceutical business is that prescription medicines are provided free for most of the population and at a nominal charge for the rest. Accordingly, the Government are responsible for establishing a complex, legal, bureaucratic and financial rigmarole to pay chemists for dispensing. That cannot be left to the uncluttered free market.
However, if the Government make the terms too attractive, they will have an excess of pharmacists competing for the available amount of NHS business; but if they make the terms too strict, they will not induce enough pharmacists to open shop; hence, the various forms of payment by way of basic practice allowance, essential small pharmacies, and doctors' dispensaries, and an on-cost which in my view perversely offers a higher payment to chemists dispensing fewer prescriptions.
Since my Unstarred Question in June last year I have argued that a more rational location of pharmacies could be brought about by relying on financial incentives and disincentives—as the PSNC was originally pledged to do. The amendment would be a large stride in that desirable direction.
It is plain that the present pattern of payment is not optimal; the number of NHS dispensers fell from approaching 15,000 some years ago to about 10,000, until last year when the number began rising by 200 a

693
year. I believe that that was in anticipation of the restrictions threatened by the Bill.
Early this year, the Nuffield Report severely criticised the Bill inter alia on the following grounds:
"the ability which has been demonstrated over the past eight years to influence numbers through the price mechanism should be fully utilised: if the differentials as between different sizes of NHS contractors are not producing the desired results they should be adjusted. The more accurate the tuning of the differentials, the fewer the applications that will need to be considered by FPCs".
The amendment would have the effect of adjusting the inducements against excessive entry because new pharmacies would be reimbursed on a cost-plus basis for ingredients and handling only, without the professional fee which is almost 20 per cent. of the total cost and amounts to over £400 million in an annual bill to the NHS which now exceeds £2,000 million. There would be no more leap-frogging by small chemists struggling to get their share of lucrative prescription business, as the average pharmacist relies on dispensing for 73 per cent. of his income.
More enterprising chemists can develop their wider service of supplying chemists and related goods without being denied, as they are at present under Clause 3, the facility of offering their customers the essential convenience of dispensing NHS prescriptions.
The amendment would remove the Bill's most objectionable feature, which I have increasingly come to see as having been cooked up by an unrepresentative PSNC and non-responsible civil servants of the DHSS, operating in secret session and in strict defiance of their original brief.
I urge the Government to take this olive branch seriously. It would not only get them off the hook of instigating a restrictive practice which the Office of Fair Trading has said would not have been countenanced from private contractors, but also holds the promise of real savings.
I must reveal my doubts about the predicted economies on which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, set such store in Committee. At col. 832 of Hansard, she produced some figures of hypothetical savings of tens of millions of pounds by checking the recent growth of pharmacies. Thus, it was argued, if their number was reduced by 200 a year, the NHS would save £50,000 on average from each one, making a total saving of some £10 million.
I have at least three reasons for declaring that calculation to be a nonsense. First, the recent faster increase in new pharmacies, which reverses the earlier decline, is almost certainly due to people coming in before the shutters are pulled down by the new restrictive sub-committees. The fear of growth and increased expenditure is largely a phantom. Secondly, the average cost of £50,000 per contract is meaningless. It appears to be based upon the annual total cost of £500 million for 10,000 pharmacies, which relates to dispensing fees which, in turn, relate to the number of prescriptions and not to the number of pharmacies that share them out.
Finally, if there were an increase in the number of pharmacies so that each, on average, dispensed fewer prescriptions, the additional expenditure for the NHS would arise only from the higher rate of on-cost which the present contract perversely gives to smaller
694
dispensers. Based upon the realistic estimate that a new pharmacy may take less than half the NHS business form its nearest neighbour, the cost of a new entrant would be nearer £7,000—one-seventh of the £50,000 dreamt up by the Minister's advisers.
After much discussion and thought over some 16 months since my original Unstarred Question, I am completely persuaded that more could be done to achieve the Government's purpose through financial incentives and disincentives along the lines provided by the amendment. Although I have come close at times to describing the PSNC's proposals in Clause 3 as a pseudo-professional ramp, I am impressed by the probability that over the next few years it is more likely that we shall see a contraction than an increase in the number of local chemists, of which we already have fewer per thousand of the population than most comparable countries.
The Government are not only ending the basic practice allowance and offering compensation to small contractors to surrender their contracts; they are reducing the minimum number of prescriptions for eligibility to the essential small practice scheme from 24,000 to 16,000. The Government are easing out smaller chemists with their present proposals.
Apart from the inconvenience to sick people who will have to walk further to get their prescriptions made up, there is the loss of service, not least in advice and over-the-counter treatments which the Government and others wish to encourage.
As it stands, the Bill does nothing to arrest the consequent decline in service which will almost certainly be accompanied by a rise in costs of additional prescriptions. I believe that my amendment offers not merely the promise of savings but the certainty that any future extension of retail pharmacies will reduce the cost of the total drug bill to the NHS. In short, an improved service can be made available without the NHS having to underwrite a higher cost through subsidising inefficient pharmacies drawn into the business only by the present prospect of an unjustified subsidy. I believe that this amendment offers a more practical, positive, progressive and principled way towards improved pharmaceutical services for the community.
9 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has referred to a more rational location of pharmacies and also to essential small pharmacies, suggesting that the government plan may have the effect of easing some of them out. I should like to revert briefly to the Scottish dimension and in particular to essential small pharmacies in Scotland, a matter which vexed your Lordships and indeed aroused some indignation at Committee stage. First, I have to thank the noble Baroness for arranging with her noble friend Lord Glenarthur to write to me, as the noble Lord did. I should like to express my thanks in person to the noble Lord, too. He has, I believe, copied the same letter to a number of noble Lords, attaching a note explaining the current difference between the English and the Scottish schemes.
As the noble Baroness explained in Committee, there are significant differences and a separate set of

695
negotiations likely to lead to separate conclusions. I understand this now, and I do not dispute it. I continue to dispute, however, the inequality of outcome north and south of the Border. There are details of importance relating to essential small pharmacies that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, did not include in his note. As I understand the current situation, the Government put £45,000 into the scheme and the profession puts in another £45,000. The Government are planning to increase their contribution to £60,000, while the profession's contribution is going up to £120,000, making a total of £180,000 available for the scheme in Scotland. But in order to guarantee essential small pharmacies an equivalent remuneration to their English neighbours, a total of £270,000 would be required—that is to say, a shortfall of £90,000. This does not seem an enormous gap to bridge, particularly if the Government are interested in extending the scheme in rural and deprived urban areas.
I understand—and here perhaps the noble Lord or the noble Baroness will correct me—the stumbling block is the 10/85ths principle or rule applied by the Treasury, which limits to this fraction the proportion of funds available for Scotland in relation to those available for England and Wales. But this rigid proportion would not seem right and would not seem to apply in this field, as the number of essential small pharmacies in Scotland is 51 out of a total of 1,150 (equivalent to 4.4 per cent.), while the number in England is 200 out of 10,000, equal to only 2 per cent. of the total number of pharmacies. There is a much larger professional pool to fund essential small pharmacies in the rest of Great Britain than in Scotland. This means that the Scots need proportionately more help to fund their ESP scheme, which is relatively larger because of geographical factors.
The essential small pharmacy discrepancy at the moment is about £16,000 for Scotland as against £18,000 for England and Wales. I understand that the Scots can live with this. But under the new scheme the gap would widen to £16,000 against £23,000, which is much less tolerable, even though I understand that the shock/horror discrepancy of £12,000 to £23,000 raised in Committee would affect only one pharmacy in Scotland. Surely, as an earnest of their intention to secure a better spread of pharmacies, the Government should be prepared to waive the Treasury fraction for this relatively small sum of money and put a little more into the Scottish scheme as an incentive for the extension of the ESP scheme.
I gather that negotiations are continuing at present between the profession and the home and health department which I do not wish to prejudice. I should have thought, however, that if the Government were perpared to match the profession's £120,000 pound for pound with an equivalent £120,000—that is only £60,000 up on their current offer—it would be possible for the Scots to reward existing essential small pharmacies more fairly, if not quite up to the English and Welsh levels, and also to expand the scheme to allow for another 10 or 12 essential small pharmacies in Scotland.
If the noble Baroness or indeed the noble Lord—we are glad to have him with us for the debate—can give
696
an undertaking along those lines, he will be going a long way towards allaying the disquiet of Scots. I speak as a London Scot and refer to genuine Scots from north of the Border. He will also go a long way to convincing the rest of us that the Government are serious in their desire for a better distribution of pharmacies all over the United Kingdom, which must otherwise remain a matter for doubt.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will forgive me, I should like to revert more precisely to the substance of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. It seems to me an amendment of considerable importance. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it seems an extraordinarily positive and neat proposition. I was almost going to describe it as a divine amendment. But that would perhaps be going too far for my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I would certainly not go so far as to endorse all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, advanced in its favour. I thought that the noble Lord, if I may say so, was a little ungenerous to my noble friend and her department in the light of the very considerable efforts that they have made to meet us on this clause.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that as a proposition this amendment has everything to commend it. So far as I understand it, it offers the prospect of combining enhanced access and availability of dispensing chemists around the country with reduced cost to the National Health Service. If that can be achieved by means of a single amendment, I find it hard to believe that there can be convincing arguments against it. I shall listen with interest to my noble friend's response.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as a home-based Scot, so to speak, rather than a London-based Scot, I associate myself wholly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. It seems to me intolerable that the support for pharmacies in Scotland should be at roughly half the rate of support for essential pharmacies in England.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that he is offering me an olive branch. I believe that the noble Lord is trying to offer me an apple. I resent greatly the derogatory remarks that he made at the beginning of his speech. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is wrong to say that National Health Service pharmacy numbers fell until last year when they started to go up just because control of entry was imminent. Numbers of NHS pharmacies started to rise significantly from 1980 onwards.
The practical effect of this proposal would be that those pharmacies that could afford to operate on a cost reimbursement only basis would be exempt from the necessary or desirable test. Only big stores with multiple outlets, where pharmacy is a small proportion of a bigger enterprise, would be able to take advantage of this proposal. I am thinking of stores like Underwoods and Safeway's. The large multiples could afford to subsidise their pharmacies from the rest of their extensive operation. Even with no profit element available, they would be able through their marketing

697
strength and economies of scale to obtain discounts not available to the small pharmacist. Their subsequent increase in market share, through being exempt from the necessary or desirable test, would drive out the small pharmacist from the high streets.
Potential small pharmacies would see less opportunity to set up in business themselves except in the more unfashionable localities. This effect could in itself adversely affect progress to a better distribution of services. Extra money would have to be spent to ensure a service in unfashionable areas so that the old and sick received the service that they need.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will not mind my saying that he is not the first person to come up with this idea. Its effects have been considered by my department before. It is clear that its introduction would load the system in favour of the large multiples. The noble Lord was very keen at the Committee stage of this Bill to ensure that the vested interest of the pharmacy contractor had no part in the new arrangements. I am, therefore, a little surprised that he should now be advocating a proposal which would promote the vested interest of the large multiples.
I stand by our estimates of savings, although I emphasised in Committee that absolute precision is impossible. Because the number of prescriptions dispensed is set by doctors and is uninfluenced by the number of pharmacies, it must be the case that extra and unnecessary pharmacies push up national health costs. All extra fixed costs have to be met by the National Health Service. Since it is impossible for prescriptions to be dispensed without a pharmacist being present, and since it is rare for pharmacists to work on their own without dispensing assistants, the NHS has to meet a most significant proportion of the manning costs of extra and unnecessary pharmacies as well as their fixed costs.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. I find it a little hard to follow this part of the argument. Surely the whole purpose of the amendment is that those fixed costs would not fall on the health service because the purveyor of the prescriptions would be limited to the reimbursement of the cost of the drugs. I also do not follow the proposition that the old and sick would suffer. Why should it he more disadvantageous to the old and the sick to be able to get their prescriptions at a multiple store where they may be doing other shopping rather than to make a separate visit to a small pharmacy in the same locality?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to answer the last part of what my noble friend asks, it is very unlikely that large multiples will be interested in less fashionable sites such as rural areas or suburban housing estates. It is extremely important that those areas should be as well served as the areas where large multiples can and will take advantage of the system. The Government cannot support such a change. To develop a better pharmaceutical service, a better use of the pharmacist's skills and better value for money, we need to maintain a substantial contribution from the smaller pharmacy. In due course I shall ask the noble Lord. Lord Harris of High Cross, kindly to withdraw
698
his amendment. With the leave of the House, I shall ask my noble friend Lord Glenarthur to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others on the question of Scotland.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, for the sake of the record let me say that I cannot possibly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I made it clear from the very beginning that on these Benches our concern was with the small pharmacist and the community pharmacist. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I presume that the amendment would mean that Tesco or any other large store could set up a little pharmacy in the corner.
We seriously debated the Nuffield Report in this House. The amendment would run absolutely contrary to what it said—that we should seek to improve the quality of service provided by pharmacists to the people whom they served. I do not think that this can do anything other than damage the small pharmacist and perhaps reduce the real quality of service that a pharmacist gives, usually to clients he knows.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond briefly to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Morton of Shuna, with the particular Scottish dimension. I think that it is important for your Lordships to understand that there is, and has been, historically a difference between the ways that these matters have been dealt with in Scotland and England. To equalise any one element of remuneration would have an adverse effect on the other elements. For example, the discount scale and the arrangements for dispensing by doctors—as there is no rural dispensing committee in Scotland—would probably require alterations, and some of those changes would be detrimental to Scottish pharmacists. Probably there would be no justification for continuing separate negotiations for Scotland. However, I can assure both noble Lords that such a change would not have the support of the Scottish pharmacists as a whole. Their representatives have indicated that they would bitterly oppose such a suggestion.
The Government are contributing the same proportional amount of support to the schemes on both sides of the Border. The moneys for the schemes are made up of the Government's contribution and an amount which pharmacists' negotiators agree can be diverted from the balance sheet for that purpose. The negotiations are not complete.
In order to achieve the objective of the agreement that no essential small pharmacies should be worse off, it is by no means certain that an increased contribution from the Government would be required. Under the existing Scottish essential small pharmacy scheme a pharmacy dispensing 1,300 prescriptions per month would receive remuneration which in total exceeds the English basic minimum guarantee of £22,000. Although the negotiations on a revised Scottish scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred, are not yet complete, we have—and I repeat this—guaranteed that essential small pharmacies will be at least no worse off. When the negotiations are

699
complete it is possible that some will be better off than under the existing Scottish scheme or under the English system. Essentially we must await the outcome of the negotiations.
I return to what I said at the beginning. It really is not proper that we should consider the remuneration system in elements; we should consider it as a whole.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the noble Lord before he sits down whether he would agree that it is very unlikely that Scottish pharmacists will oppose the Government raising their contribution just on this scheme from £60,000 to £120,000 without changing any of the other arrangements? Would the Minister agree with that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that if one arrangement is changed, in view of the fact that we are talking about a package of different subjects, it would be necessary for one to have an effect on all the others. However, I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I must admit that I did not find the opposition of the noble Baroness to my amendment completely persuasive. I think there has been throughout these long discussions some element of uncertainty or conflict in the mind of the DHSS about whether they want a larger number of pharmacies or whether they want to reduce the number of pharmacies in order to reduce the costs to the NHS. I mentioned earlier that the new proposals in a variety of ways will in effect squeeze out a number of smaller pharmacies, by the removal of the basic practice allowance, by compensation for small chemists surrendering their contract and by reducing the number of prescriptions for eligibility for the essential small pharmacy scheme.
The Government are in some difficulty in that they said earlier that of course they would use incentives if incentives could be adjusted to bring about the location that they wish. I discovered that under the present arrangement there are some 3,000 pharmacies that are eligible for the essential small pharmacy scheme; that is, they are pharmacies which dispense fewer than 24,000 prescriptions but more than 6,000 prescriptions per year and are more than two kilometres from the next pharmacist as the crow flies. If the Government wish to load the balance in favour of small pharmacies, they do not have to block out these dreadful large and enterprising chains which cause so much consternation; they merely have to adjust the terms to ensure that more essential small pharmacy payments are made in areas where it is desirable to ensure that a small pharmacy exists.
I have been chastised, perhaps not wholly without some justification, for some rather high-spirited remarks about the PSNC and periodic activities of the civil servants in the DHSS. Very well; I shall try to do better next time. However, meanwhile I must raise a note of objection about the standard "snideries" that are uttered against what are called the large multiples.
700
We know that Boots has been established for a long time. Boots performs a remarkable service in all kinds of ways and it relies for only 14 per cent. of its turnover on NHS business. It does a damned sight more for the NHS than the NHS does for Boots. Underwoods has, I dare say, the added handicap of having recently forced itself into activity and a presence in the High Street, but it relies for only 4 per cent. of its turnover on the NHS. The idea that those chains are in some way raiding the national purse seems to me to be misplaced and in some ways objectionable.
I do not believe that by allowing new pharmacies to establish their enterprises in the High Street and to offer to serve their customers by dispensing NHS prescriptions on the basis of reimbursement of costs only, can be doing anything other than a service to their customers and to the NHS.
I believe that the merits of this constructive proposal are so outstanding that they will improve with further consideration. I shall leave the matter to fructify in what has proved to be the open mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and I shall pursue my reforming ambitions in private and with some persistence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Remuneration of persons providing general medical services etc.]:
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
(""different information" means such directly related information which was not, and could not have been, available and known to the determining authority at the time of the earlier determination. It excludes such directly related information which was, and could have been, available and known to the determining authority at the time of the earlier determination but is used in a different manner at the time of the later determination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this amendment during the Committee stage and withdrew it saying that I would return to it on Report. My noble friend Lady Trumpington then kindly wrote to me a most helpful letter, which was followed by an informative conversation with her department. I am encouraged by what I have been told and I am moving the amendment again this evening to give my noble friend an opportunity to tell the House what I have been privately told.
Much of my concern about the lack of definition of the term "different information" has been reduced by two factors. First, negotiations betweeen the department and opticians will in future be carried out on an annual as opposed to a four-yearly basis. Secondly, now that the voucher system is operating—and I understand operating smoothly—there will in future be no dispensing fees to be considered and it will just be a matter of agreeing suitable sight test fees.
However, I still say that I do not like to have in a Bill such a wide expression as "different information" undefined. It may not matter in this case, but I should not like to think that it could be used as a precedent in future legislation. That is all I wish to say. I would just ask my noble friend to be good enough to confirm my understanding of her letter to me and my conversation with her department. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am glad to answer my noble friend Lord Cullen. As I said in Committee, such an amendment would open the way for more arguments and would prove to be too restrictive. I can see the arguments that would take place on whether or not information was, or could have been, available to the determining authority at the time of the earlier determination. There could also be occasions when both the determining authority and the profession wished to use information previously disregarded if better information was not forthcoming.
The provision needs to be widely drawn to accommodate the complexities and differences of the remuneration systems of all four contractor professions, and to ensure that the outcome is fair both to the particular profession and to the taxpayer.
I know that the opticians are concerned that the provision of "different information" could create uncertainty for them if they had to regard any determination of the sight-test fee as provisional. However, the department is well advanced in its negotiations with the opticians' representatives on new arrangements for cost inquiries. This will bring greater certainty and stability to their remuneration system.
The intention is to have inquiries annually, rather than every four or five years as in the past. This will mean that their actual costs will be reflected in their fees much sooner and so minimise the size and period of any adjustment. It is also intended that the conventions for collecting and processing the cost information should be negotiated in advance with the opticians. Thus both sides will be fully aware of the basis on which the sight test fee is to be determined.
These arrangements should ensure that, with the profession's co-operation, it would be exceptional for the fee to be adjusted in respect of a period more than two years back. This qualification is necessary as unforeseen difficulties can arise with any new arrangement. Thus, we are making substantial progress to improve the opticians' remuneration system to the benefit of the profession and the taxpayer. I hope these words will reassure my noble friend.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what she has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (1) to (4) above shall have no effect in relation to anything done or omitted before their commencement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I, too, have had a most encouraging letter from my noble friend the Minister following what I had to say at Cols. 894 and 895 at Committee stage in expressing my concern at the unfairness of the way in which the calculations related to overpayments. My noble friend has taken my point, as I see it in the letter, and I had occasion to write to her to emphasise it. I hope that perhaps she will also say some encouraging words to your Lordships to make it public at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: In reply to my noble friend, I hope he will apreciate that I am using the plainest of plain words.
This amendment would prevent the Government from taking into account any overpayment, which has or will occur before this Bill's enactment. My noble friend Lord Mottistone moved the same amendment at Committee stage. He voiced his concern about the position of the opticians with particular reference to the outstanding sight-test fee overpayment. I replied by saying that the amendment was unacceptable to the Government because it would fail to safeguard the taxpayers' interests. It would allow the professions to continue to receive the benefit of past underpayments, but it would deprive taxpayers of recompense for past overpayments up to and including determinations for 1986–87.
However, I know that the opticians are concerned about the implications of Clause 4 for the estimated overpayment of some £15 million since 1983. Given the very large sum involved and the numbers available from whom to effect recovery, the Government wish to assure the opticians that they will not seek to reclaim any of the overpayment arising from the period before 1st January 1985. This will allow the recovery of the remaining overpayment to be achieved over a reasonable period. In doing so, we will take into account the position of those opticians who joined or left the contract since the beginning of the period of overpayment. This will mean that as far as is possible only the fees of those opticians who benefited from the overpayment will be adjusted. Limiting recovery to 1st January 1985 will help considerably in achieving a fair recovery of arrears. I hope that my noble friend agrees that this assurance clearly demonstrates that the Government are fully committed to treating the profession fairly and reasonably on remuneration issues.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it will be recalled, even if only by me, that in the debate that we had at Committee stage I was involved in the discussion on retrospective payments and expressed some concern about the situation. My amendment was taken as one of a group—to which I have no objection. I was delighted to receive also a copy of these lovely little missives that have been distributed so freely around your Lordships' House. I want to say that I was delighted to receive it and delighted at the news that it gave. I think it will be very reassuring to the opticians that they will not be expected to pay for any ups and downs—or, rather, downs or ups; I cannot think which it will be—beyond the period of 1st January 1985. I welcome the decision taken by the noble Baroness. I think this is the third occasion on which in this Bill she has clearly reacted to the expressed views in your Lordships' House.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his contribution. I thank her particularly for the assurance that it is not intended to reclaim any overpayments made prior to 1st January 1985. That is most welcome, especially as the profession's negotiators have not formally expressed a view about the level of

703
overpayments to be claimed by the DHSS. Also, I welcome the assurance by my noble friend in her letter and in her statement that it is not intended to recover moneys from those who have not benefited; that is, new entrants and retired practitioners.
I am slightly worried (because the letter and my noble friend's statement did not specifically say so) that the arithmetic about which I had occasion to write to her in my letter, which showed that it was possible for those who were still in practice to bear a share of what would have been claimed from those out of practice, might filter through. I am not saying that I want a further assurance from my noble friend at this stage, but I am saying that I want it for the record that every effort will be made by her department to see that there is no unfairness in claiming some sums from those in practice in order in theory to get a few pence extra for the taxpayer. It is only pence to the taxpayer but, as I pointed out to my noble friend, it is hundreds of pounds to the practitioners, or could be.
The profession's Whitley negotiators agreed with my noble friend that the new annual review of fees should avoid any significant overpayments or underpayments in the future. My noble friend's letter and her statement go a long way to reassure the profession. I trust that the troubles that have occurred during the past 12 months or so over quite large sums of money and quite a lot of thinking on some sides that some people have been very unfair to others—and the courts have had to be involved; it really has been a nasty story—will all be at an end with the attitude which it now seems to me that my noble friend and her department are taking. I hope very much that this will be the picture for the future.
In conclusion I thank my noble friend not only for what she has done by letter to me but for what she seems to have done throughout this debate. In earlier amendments she has gone a long way towards meeting what noble Lords said at the Committee stage. I think she has done a first-class job and I just hope that her department keeps it up when in the distant future she
704
goes on to be something much grander. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Short title, etc. ]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("Section 1") and insert ("Sections 1 and 2").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 8(4) of the Bill provides for the removal of Crown immunity under food legislation to take effect three months after the Act is passed. The Government want the same commencement provision in respect of the removal of Crown immunity under health and safety legislation. We therefore propose amending the subsection to refer both to Clause 1 and Clause 2. I hope that your Lordships agree. I beg to move.

In the Title
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 9:
Line 2, after ("food") insert ("and health and safety").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the insertion of Clause 2 in the Bill makes it necessary to amend the Long Title to refer to health and safety. I hope that your Lordships agree. I beg to move.

London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.