Lords Sitting of 28 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Pollution Control and Power Stations
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the integrated approach to pollution control described by the Earl of Caithness in a recent speech to the Tidy Britain Group includes reducing the need for new power stations by promoting energy efficiency investments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government promote energy efficiency because of the wide benefits it brings. Nevertheless, however close we get to the maximum feasible level of energy efficiency, there will still be a great need for energy in general and electricity in particular. Existing power stations will continue to reach the end of their economic lives and will have to be replaced.
As to an integrated approach to pollution control, I should point out to the House that my noble friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Water will be making a statement later this afternoon in response to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Cullen.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Baroness on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box in her new position. From these Benches we congratulate her on her new appointment.
I am most grateful for the Answer and I take it that the Government's intention is to continue with an energy conservation programme. May I therefore ask how it will be carried forward in the event of privatisation? Will it become a responsibility of the regulatory body and, if so, how strong will the instruction be for that body to ensure that energy conservation is carried out in a way that we would wish?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and her most kind remarks. I can assure the House that before too long I hope to be sparking on all plugs!
In response to the specific question raised, I think that I can do no better than reassure the noble Baroness on this front by quoting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who recently said in another place:
"We intend that the regulators should be responsible for the promotion of the advantages of energy efficiency. We are not prepared to go quite as far as some critics would wish. We do not seek to impose on people the obligation to save electricity in their homes and to impose on companies an obligation to make energy-saving arrangements. We are in the business. as will be the regulator, of encouraging the efficient use of energy".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to give an assurance, even at this stage of her career in the department, that in building any new power stations it will follow the American example and not build any further nuclear power stations?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, at this stage I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance. However, I can say, on the whole question of environmental control in this area, that we put a high priority on pollution control emissions.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a fact that nuclear energy production is the cleanest and safest of all the methods available?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that to be the case.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether it will be possible, under the legislation which the Government now propose, after privatisation for a new power station, or indeed any other power station in this country, to be owned by a foreign company?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no, not without notice. However, perhaps I can investigate the matter and respond to the noble Lord's question in a little more detail at another stage.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness in a position to comment on some evidence given by the Council for the Protection of Rural England to the Energy Committee in another place on this very subject? The Council said:
"It is vital that environmental considerations should be reflected much more strongly in the fundamental corporate planning of a privatised industry".
It then added the really important point:
"with clear sanctions for failure to comply".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only answer the noble Lord's question by saying that the Government are fully aware that investment in energy efficiency can have a positive environmental impact and our promotions have always been undertaken on the basis that the investment should be both cost-effective and environmentally acceptable. I should add that obviously the Government are listening to remarks and advice on all fronts and from all places in relation to the proposals under discussion.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as well as taking into account all these environmental factors she should also take account of the needs of the next century, especially our successors, for a supply of electricity?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. As there are twin targets in this field, one of them being energy efficiency and the other being pollution emission controls, I think that we are taking all those factors into account.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the small amount of pollution by nuclear power stations compared with coal stations, can the Minister say to what extent NIREX is now able, or unable, to find somewhere to store the small amount of radioactive rubbish that it has?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret to have to say to my noble friend that I feel that is another question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, without ruling out the use of nuclear power, have the Government properly costed the expense of closing down nuclear power stations when they come to the end of their lives?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that too is another question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Question refers to tidying up.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her promotion to the Department of Energy comes as a great relief to many Members of this House who have been looking for a proper spokesman from that department? We wish her well and do not propose to bowl fast balls just now.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the Government have listened to the comments which have been made from this House, perhaps especially by my noble friend, in this respect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the noble Baroness's statement that nuclear was the cleanest form of fuel, does that mean that the Government, or anyone else, have now solved the problem of the storage of long-term high-level radioactive waste?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are of course taking that fully into consideration. However, I believe that in my earlier statement I did not say that it was the cleanest form, or the only clean form, of energy. In fact, my departmental responsibilities will include renewables; namely, wind, water and other sources of fuel which are also clean.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that even if we were to go over 100 per cent. to nuclear energy, the lead time required to bring in the power stations that we need is so long that we need a most positive energy conservation programme now if we are to help to avoid the greenhouse effect which is already causing some damage throughout the world?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I believe that we have a good energy efficiency and conservation programme at present. It is for that reason that the Government are tackling the matter in this way.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps it would hearten the noble Baroness to know that, should we
380
have one cold winter such as that of 1962–63, accompanied by power cuts, we shall not see the hedonistically-minded environmentalists for dust!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his contribution.

Falklands Fishery: Protection
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that they have established an effective control system for the protection of the Falkland Islands fisheries.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, yes, responsibility for the protection of the Falklands fishery rests with the Falkland Islands Government, who deploy two vessels and one aircraft to patrol the fishery. Monitoring of catches and fish stocks is undertaken by their scientific advisers, the Renewable Resources Assessment Group of Imperial College.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that this immensely important source of the islands' wealth and well-being, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has drawn attention, is safeguarded, and that if necessary the Royal Navy is present to help?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have explained, responsibility for policing the zone rests with the Falkland Islands Government. While I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements will not be entirely satisfactory, if the Falkland Islands Government wanted further assistance that could be considered.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although it is 10 years too late and we should have set it up many years ago, the zone has been a great success? Can he say something about the findings of the Imperial College study on the success of the conservation measures? Whereas he may not wish to refer to the backing of the Royal Navy, we all know that the Royal Navy is there.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Renewable Resources Assessment Group from Imperial College which is advising the Falkland Islands Government in this matter is advising also on the number of licences that it is appropriate to issue season by season, and has recommended that a slightly smaller number be issued this year as compared with last year. I am clear that that results from the groups' views on the conservation aspect of the matter, with which it is clearly satisfied.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate what other countries are fishing extensively in this area? Until recently the Soviets were very active with extensive fisheries and fishing. While it may have been just outside the restricted Falklands

381
fisheries area, in regard to the conservation principle and the preservation of future fishing it is surely important to get international agreement not only within the boundaries but just outside as well.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the main fishing grounds are inside the zone to which I have referred. As for the countries concerned, in the second season, the one which began earlier this year, 145 licences were issued—which is an increase on 1987 —to companies from the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Norway, Poland, Japan and South Korea.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the success of the zone to which he and my noble friend have referred is reflected in increased revenue for the Falkland Islands, which we all welcome? Can he tell the House the size of that increase and to what extent it may influence government aid, both military and non-military, to the islands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the revenue to the Falkland Islands Government for 1987–88 is estimated at £1865 million. This does not include the joint venture premiums payable by the Stanley Fisheries Company Ltd. Against that must be set the estimated enforcement and scientific costs, which are of the region of £6 million for 1988–89. There is clearly a substantial new revenue for the Falkland islands Government which they did not have before. Our aid as such to the Falkland Islands is now at a comparatively low level. Indeed, I think it is zero for this year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord go a little further? Is he really saying that military and non-military aid to the Falklands from this country is zero? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. We do not have military aid as such, but as the noble Lord will be aware, we have a garrison down there which costs something of the order of £100 million.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those figures. Does he agree that this effectively triples the revenue that is open to the Falkland Islands? Does he not also agree that considerable congratulations are due both to his department and indeed to the Falkland Islands Government on putting in a very complex system and operating it apparently so wisely and successfully? In the light of that, will he now consider the other part of our recommendations and extend the limit to the generally internationally accepted level of 200 miles, which despite what some people say will not cost a great deal and will yield further revenue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This has, roughly speaking, trebled the income of the Falkland Islands Government, which is clearly to be very much welcomed. As he may be aware, they have commissioned a study on how to take advantage of this new income. I understand that the report is to be with them shortly; in fact they may
382
already have just received it and they will no doubt he acting upon it in due course.
As for extending the zone as the noble Lord suggests, there is an undoubted entitlement to extend the zone to 200 miles, but the limit was established at 150 miles for conservation reasons. It is a conservation measure and not a political or military measure. That was the consideration which persuaded us that 150 miles was the right radius.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the last thing I wish to suggest to the noble Lord is that he is concealing the basic reasons, but does he not agree that political considerations are the main reason? Does he not also agree that the Government have made every effort to talk to the Argentines but that they have refused to talk and co-operate as everyone would desire? In the light of that, will he now give further consideration to extending the zone to the internationally accepted limit? We might also take in South Georgia on the way, which is being hoovered up by the Russians.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot agree that this was other than a conservation measure. The Falklands intermediate conservation zone was established for conservation reasons and for no other. That consideration persuaded us that 150 miles was the right limit. It encompassed the fishing grounds and had no other significance. That is the reason it will be left at that radius for the time being.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that, for the purposes of conservation, 150 miles is better than 200 miles? if so, can he explain how that is?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the conservation arguments suggested a limit of 150 miles for this zone. It was a conservation zone. It was not established for any other purpose. It was therefore right to set it at the limit which conservation considerations thought right.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although this is a very satisfactory position, as has been said on both sides of the House, it will not continue unless there is more scientific information about the fisheries in the area? Is he further aware that approaches are already being made to private enterprise interested in the fishing industry to subsidise the provision of more scientific information on why the fish are there and on how to keep them there so that we know what is happening?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on a very important point already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. That is why the Renewable Resources Assessment Group has been asked to do its work. And as I mentioned earlier, some £6 million is being spent annually on that work.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, do I understand that South Georgia and Thule are not included in the fisheries protection?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, South Georgia is certainly not included in this zone. There is a convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources which covers South Georgia waters. We are concerned to hear that, as is the case, not all the conservation measure which that organisation has in mind are being fully met. We intend to raise this when the convention meets again in October.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not wish to press this subject indefinitely although I could go on for hours. However, will the noble Lord accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? We all agree that the measures were introduced for conservation purposes. We doubt whether reducing the area to be considered to 150 miles adds to the conservation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, equally I do not think extending the zone to 200 miles would add to conservation. That is why we decided upon the 150-mile limit.

Bathing Beach Standards
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell Lord Campbell of Croy asked her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made to bring bathing beaches in the United Kingdom up to the standards prescribed by the European Community.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are making good progress in bringing our bathing waters up to EC standards. Results of the 1987 monitoring programme suggest that about 70 per cent. of UK waters now meet these standards, compared with 62 per cent. in 1986. This improvement will continue as water authorities replace unsatisfactory short sea outfalls. Water authorities are currently spending £70 million per year on bringing bathing waters up to standard. The Government are reviewing with them the scope for accelerating their programmes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, before noble Lords depart tomorrow for their favourite watering places, ready after the last few weeks for a much needed summer break, can my noble friend assure the House that the recognised beaches around this country are entirely wholesome and salubrious, even if they are not on the EC's approved list?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. We are naturally advised on the health aspects by the DHSS. The environmental health officers have not recommended us to close any beaches. So, my Lords, I wish you good bathing!
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the worst cause of pollution has been the 19th
384
century practice of getting rid of urban sewage by driving it through pipes which are put along the sea bed for a distance of about 100 yards from the high water mark level? This practice should be discontinued. Can my noble friend say whether steps have been taken to achieve the end of that practice?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The short sea outfalls to which he refers have not proved satisactory. That is why the recommended solution which is approved environmentally is the long sea outfall.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether progress in this respect is as fast in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not without notice, I am afraid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am conscious that the noble Earl's responsibilities in the Department of the Environment now include housing, of which we are very glad, but they do not include water. Will not the noble Earl have the responsibility of piloting the Bill attempting to privatise the water authorities through this House? Can the noble Earl assure the House that any Bill for which he takes responsibility will have adequate safeguards to ensure that the new water authorities do not in any way damage the environment of our beaches but help to make it better?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is looking forward to debating that Bill as much as I am. Doubtless we shall be looking at those clauses in particular.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Sewage Working Party, may I ask the noble Earl whether he realises that if we put longer and longer pipes out into the Channel, the French will bring longer and longer pipes towards this country? When I was on that working party, we were told by the French, "The more rubbish you send to us, the more we will send to you!". Therefore the only answer surely is to deal with this problem at source. The effluent must not be allowed to go into the sea to begin with but must be dealt with at source.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is well versed in these matters. However, I can assure her that from an environmental point of view the sea is the most useful agent when a properly constructed long sea outfall is used. That is the environmentally beneficial way of dealing with the problem.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the critical point of the noble Baroness's question is that the industrial waste should be detoxified before it goes into the public sewer? As long as that is done, my noble friend is absolutely correct that the dilution and oxidation which will take place in the sea will safely dispose of the effluent.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I know that the water authorities have been at great pains to make sure that any industrial effluent is taken care of before it reaches that stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in the meantime can the noble Earl arrange to see that the seawater on our beaches is a little warmer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a moment ago the noble and learned Lords' noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised a question relating to the greenhouse effect, which might alter the temperature of the seawater in due course!

Speech Therapy Services
3.26 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the respective duties of (a) education authorities in England and Wales and (b) health authorities to provide funds for speech therapy services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, speech therapy is one of the services which it is the duty of health authorities to provide under the National Health Services Act 1977. As a result of your Lordships' consideration of the Education Reform Bill, local education authorities in England and Wales will have a power to provide funds for speech therapy services.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many children in this country who need adequate speech therapy services but who do not receive them? Is this not partly due to the fact that it is nobody's particular responsibility? There is a dichotomy here between the duty of the health authority and the duty of the education authority. Is it not time that this matter was cleared up properly?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I fear that I must correct the noble Lord. As I said in my original Answer, there is a duty on the regional health authorities but merely a power under the Education Reform Bill for local education authorities to involve themselves in this area.
I also point out to the noble Lord that the number of vacancies in the National Health Service is broadly matched by the number of newly trained therapists seeking employment. The situation is improving, although we are not complacent in this matter. Since 1979 the number of speech therapists employed in the National Health Service has increased by 66 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that speech therapists can enable people to communicate who have lost or have never had that ability and that speech therapists can save public money when they make individuals independent and employable?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. There are other professions supplementary to medicine which also have this effect. But I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Enderby Report showed that there should be 23 speech therapists per 100,000 population? That means that there should be 12,000 speech therapists in post. In fact there are only 3,000. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have for dealing with this shortfall of 9,000 speech therapists? Does he agree that a large part of the problem is due to the pitifully low salaries which speech therapists are paid?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course I am aware of the figures that the noble Lord has mentioned to the House in his supplementary question. However, I repeat that, while the Government are not complacent, the regional health authorities, through their activities with the districts, have in recent years considerably increased the number of speech therapists within the resources available to them. I am sure that they will continue to do this.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the most distressing speech defects in children is stammering? I declare having had and still having an interest in the matter. Can my noble friend the Minister say what funds or other assistance are being diverted to that form of defect?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I very much regret that I am unable to satisfy my noble friend in this respect. However, I understand that as part of the training of speech therapists training in correction of stammering is also given.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, will the Minister say when Section 7(2), the newly amended section, of the Education Act 1981 will come into force?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that it will be shortly after Royal Assent. The normal procedure would be for it to be two months after Royal Assent. But I certainly anticipate that it will come into force by the end of the year.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister say that he had had his attention drawn to the study, which showed that we had only roughly a quarter of the number of speech therapists who were needed in the country. I am talking about the report referred to by my noble friend. Does he accept the conclusions of that authoritative study? Bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of local authorities are at present quite unable to meet the educational needs of speech therapists and that the provision of speech therapists in Britain is roughly half of that which is accepted by most EC countries, will the Government take determined action to increase the number available? Many of them are leaving the profession and taking up other work because of the salaries offered for speech therapy.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord's conclusions. The starting salary of a speech therapist is fractionally more than that of a teacher, an occupational therapist or indeed a physiotherapist. There are no accurate estimates available of the number of speech and language impaired people in the population. That is why we are currently sponsoring a research study in Oxford which should provide improved information. Of course not all those with communication problems necessarily need speech therapy. But I stress what I have said several times, which is that the Government are not complacent and are following all these matters up.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that Questions have lasted for 30 minutes. I hope that he will put his question and then allow me to make the business statement, if that is agreeable to the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The Minister seemed to think that salaries were satisfactory. We must bear in mind that in most cases trained speech therapists have received four years' training as compared with the two years' training for an occupational therapist. Therefore, does he really feel that £8,000 a year will encourage speech therapists to remain in this very demanding profession?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has again misinterpreted me. I said that the starting salaries of the four fairly comparable groups were much the same. I am sure that the House will agree with me that they are comparable groups. I do not see that as a reason for not attracting speech therapists into the profession.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost Regulations 1988, the Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988 will be taken.

Petitions: Housing Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from 4,655 residents of Sheffield in the following terms:
"We the udersigned do humbly petition your Lordships and Ladyships to amend Part IV of the current Housing Bill so that more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the
388
proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot".
Petition presented.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the residents of Southwark which prays that this House will amend Part IV of the Housing Bill so that more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot. The Petition bears 400 signatures.
Petition presented.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the residents of Greenwich in the following terms:
"we the undersigned do humbly petition your Lordships and Ladyships to amend Part IV of the current Housing Bill so that more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote have to be in favour of the proposition to choose a new landlord for it to proceed, and that the vote be conducted by an independent body and by secret ballot."
Petition presented.

Murder and Life Imprisonment: Select Committee
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, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Ackner, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Nathan, L. (Chairman)

Platt of Writtle, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Windlesham, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee do meet on Monday 17th October at half-past four o'clock. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to the order of 18th July last a Select Committee be appointed to consider the

389
matters complained of in the petition against the order and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Blease, L.

Brightman, L. (Chairman)

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hampton, L.

Hood, V.

That the proceedings of the Committee shall be conducted as if they were a Committee on an opposed private Bill;
That the order and the petition shall stand referred to the Committee;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 11th October at half-past ten o'clock.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Solicitors (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Housing Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 60 [Housing action trust areas]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116A:
Page 46, line 19, after ("order") insert (", and with the consent of the local housing authority,").
The noble Lord said: The Committee now comes to Part III of the Bill which is concerned with housing action trusts. The issue on which the Committee must take a decision first of all concerns the circumstances under which housing action trusts are to be declared.
Amendment No 116A provides that the declaration of a housing action trust area should not be made without the consent of a local housing authority. I want in moving this amendment to put to the Minister a very simple question. He has three alternatives. Will he agree to this amendment, which states that the local authority —I think he will admit that the local authority is in greater contact with the people of the area than the Department of the Environment —shall have the right to decide whether an order should be made? Alternatively, will the Minister decide that the tenants themselves should have the opportunity to say whether they wish a housing action trust to be declared? That is provided in the Opposition Amendments Nos. 116AB and 116C. Or will the Minister force a housing action
390
trust down the throats of the people and the authorities concerned? That is the stark choice which faces him. I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord knows, I listen to all the arguments before I decide what to do with each amendment. I look forward to discussing Amendment No. 116AB with him in due course.
The amendment we are now discussing is Amendment No. 116A. This would have the effect of introducing an extra requirement for consent by local housing authorities into the procedures laid down in the Bill for the designation of HAT areas. Naturally we hope to proceeed with the co-operation of the local housing authority wherever possible in seeking the designation of a particular area as a housing action trust area.
I fear that at this stage I shall have to use the acronym HAT. I am sure that the Committee will get used to that term by late this evening when we finish. It stands for housing action trust.
Clause 61 already clearly lays a duty on the Secretary of State to consult any local housing authority, any part of whose area is to be included in the designated area, before making a designation order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the leaders of all the councils in the areas where he is proposing to set up housing action trusts inviting them, with representatives of tenants, to meet Ministers to discuss his proposals. This invitation is the first step towards the formal consultation process required under Clause 61 of the Bill. My right honourable friend is also seeking to appoint consultants to examine the areas proposed for designation and he will consider their reports.
Final decisions on the areas to be designated will then be taken in the light of the consultants' studies and of local views. If we decide to go ahead with individual proposals for HATs, the designation orders will be subject to affirmative resolution proceedings; so there will be an opportunity for these matters to be debated in detail before both Houses.
Obviously we want to take account of local views. But we do not rule out seeking designation even if, when it is consulted, the local housing authority is opposed to the idea. Our primary concern must be to help tenants in areas where they need help. If we conclude that help is needed, we cannot accept that the Secretary of State's decision should be subject to a veto by the local housing authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that that is the answer I expected. It is clear that the Government are not prepared to take the step which seems to us to be entirely appropriate and give to the local authority, which is elected by the people in the housing action trust area, the opportunity to make a judgment on whether or not the designation is appropriate. We are forced to consider the second alternative, which is the consultation of tenants. As the noble Earl has said, that is a separate issue. In order to debate that matter without further delay, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116AB:
Page 46, line 19, after ("order") insert ("after the conduct of a ballot as specified in section 61(2) below, (and subject to the provisions of that subsection)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 116AB, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 116C, which is the meat of the argument as we see it. We have established the Government's position. The Government say that they wish to establish housing action trust areas. They are not prepared to consult local authorities in any meaningful way by giving them the opportunity to decide whether that is appropriate. They are not prepared, so far as we can tell from what the Minister said in response to the previous amendment, to provide a meaningful opportunity for tenants in the area concerned to express a view and for their views to be taken into account or followed.
I stress that the amendments we are proposing do not prevent the creation of housing action trusts. Indeed, we do not oppose them in principle. When we heard the list which the Minister proposed at Second Reading, we listened with some amazement because some of us know the areas concerned. However, we do not say that it is wrong in principle for central government to step in and help with the most difficult housing situations in our nation. Indeed the whole programme of Estate Action, which has been in existence for some time, is evidence of the value of co-operation between local authorities, local tenants and central government in seeking to solve some of those problems.
We are proposing that there should be a proper basis of consent established for taking over any particular estate in order that the long-term policy can be safeguarded. That is entirely in accordance with the Government's own wishes. Mr. William Waldegrave, at the press conference to launch the first housing action trust area, said that they could not work without the hearts and minds of the tenants behind them. That is the principle which we seek to establish in the amendments.
The Government have justified the Bill, if one takes the 1987 Conservative manifesto as evidence, in these terms:
"The next Conservative government will give people greater choice and responsibility over their own lives … They would take the decision as tenants rather than having it taken for them".
I believe that that principle has considerable force. It is a lesson to many authoritarian local authorities of both the Left and the Right who have neglected the principle. I applaud what the Conservative Party has said in that respect.
And yet, the Bill as we have it before us does not even pay lip service —let alone give any real effect—to that laudable principle. The ultimate choice should lie with tenants when it comes to deciding what will happen to their homes. It cannot be denied that the setting up of a housing action trust is of great significance to the tenants concerned, just as it is to all council tenants. As presently drafted the Bill does not give any choice to tenants in the matter. It says that the local authority must be consulted. That does not mean that its views must be taken into account. The
392
Bill says that tenants have to be informed that their home is to become part of a housing action trust. They are not even given the right to consultation, which is a weak enough proviso as it is.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that view in his letter to prospective tenants in housing action trust areas. The letter, written after the announcement of the proposal on 11th July, states:
"I am writing to tell you about our plans and how you can get more information about them … I will consult the Council and I will make sure that you are kept informed".
Therefore, no right to consultation and no ultimate choice lies with tenants when it comes to deciding what is to happen to their homes. That does not give tenants greater choice and responsibility; it takes decisions on their behalf rather than allowing them to take those themselves. It is seeking tenant acquiescence after the event. In other words, the Bill goes directly counter to the manifesto of the Conservative Party in 1987 and to everything that the Government have said in any previous statement about the establishment of housing action trusts.
Let us not be in any doubt that the establishment of housing action trusts is of great importance to the tenants concerned. Tenants whose homes are taken over by trusts lose the veto over transfer to another landlord when they leave the trust. They are virtually certain, when they leave the trust, to become assured rather than protected tenants: that is, they become private tenants rather than local authority tenants. They lose the ability to elect and remove their landlords which is provided for in Part IV of the Bill. We shall come to that matter after the Summer Recess. But it is notable that a different regime is proposed for the housing action trust areas than that which is proposed for other public sector tenants in another part of the Bill. They lose the ability to enforce the provisions of the Access to Information Act to find out exactly what a landlord is doing.
Tenants will have their scope to transfer to another part of a local authority area heavily restricted. Local authorities have been able to operate transfer schemes which have perhaps not led to the degree of flexibility that noble Lords would wish to see. However, to a considerable extent tenants have been able to transfer from one part of the country to another by mutual agreement when that has been necessary and desirable. Tenants will lose almost entirely the prospect of setting up any tenant management co-operative, which is an increasing feature of local authority housing. They will find themselves with a different person setting their rent and deciding on the quality of management and maintenance and the allocation and letting policy on the estate as well as the scope of matters such as harassment and rent arrears and the approachability and responsiveness of estate staff. Those are all the things that make the quality of life for tenants on estates either bearable or unbearable.
In the past, tenants have been able to complain to their landlords. I have served as a local councillor in London. I know that tenants complain forcefully about the quality of management on estates. They have been able to complain to elected members whom they could dismiss at a subsequent local election. It is now proposed that they should lose all of those

393
rights. The housing action trusts will not be responsible in any way to tenants. The trusts will have no democratic responsibilities and their policies and programmes as regards the rents they charge and the degree of security they offer will be totally unknown to tenants. Is it any wonder that those tenants who are aware of these provisions have already registered the most ringing protest against them? I can assure the Committee that the three petitions that have been presented this afternoon are only the first of many petitions which will come from virtually every single estate which has already been nominated as a housing action trust area.
On 25th July the tenants of estates in Lambeth—in particular the Angell Town estate—went to see the Secretary of State for the Environment. They asked the question: would the Minister be prepared to have a joint meeting of all the local authorities in whose areas it was proposed to place a housing action trust? The Minister replied that he would be unwilling to do so because he thought that the individual consultation was adequate. They asked secondly: would the Minister be prepared to ballot all the tenants on the proposed housing action trust estates as to whether or not they wanted a HAT? The Minister clearly stated that he would not be prepared to hold a ballot.
Finally, they asked whether the Minister would be prepared to take account of the tenants' views at all. The Minister replied that he would be prepared to take into account the views of both tenants' associations and local authorities which wished to improve or alter the HAT scheme. However, the question of whether or not the estate was to have a housing action trust was not negotiable.
I put it to the Committee that a housing action trust area—and in this I agree with Mr. Waldegrave
—cannot succeed unless the tenants have the opportunity to make a decision at the outset as to whether or not it should take place. That is not just a proposal to meet the requirements of common sense and common justice; it is essential if the HATs are to work. It is common ground that they cannot succeed without the support and co-operation of the tenants.
The Government consultation paper says in paragraph 18:
"A HAT will only be able to do its job properly with the involvement and co-operation of the people who live in the area".
How can a housing action trust area start its life in an atmosphere of uncertainty, acrimony and controversy? It is no good saying that tenants will be involved right from the beginning if they are able to say, "We asked if we could have a say in this matter and we were told very clearly that we cannot". How can the Secretary of State place credible appointees on any particular housing action trust if the immediate response they will receive from tenants is to be, "This was imposed upon us; we were not given an opportunity to say what the housing action trust should be and whether we should be included in it, and we were not given an opportunity to have a say in who should be members of the housing action trust"?
I think it would be common ground among noble Lords that we want to give someone real power to improve our worst housing conditions. Our worst housing conditions are of course in the private sector but many of the bad housing conditions are in the public sector. If we want to give the Secretary of State that power, then surely we have to be able to say that we know that problems exist but that with the tenants' co-operation and with the co-operation of the local authorities which have been running the estates and know the estates we can see it through together. If the Secretary of State was able to say that it was done with co-operation and with consent and that the people had voted for it together, then I can well imagine how a housing action trust could bring a breath of fresh air into the housing mangement of some of our difficult areas.
It is not as though there were not an adequate precedent. The transfer of the former Greater London Council estate at Thamesmead, which had to have a new home when the GLC was abolished, is a very good example. The Government developed the idea of passing the estate to a trust, rather like the housing action trusts. What they did on that occasion was to hold a vote as to whether the tenants and other residents wanted a transfer to a trust. A fair ballot was organised in a way which was acceptable to all sides and the government-supported option won the ballot.
What are the Government afraid of here? Why are they denying this ballot? Are they afraid that all of the areas concerned will refuse to be part of a housing action trust? The evidence of Thamesmead shows that that fear is not justified. There may indeed be tenants, as there were at Thamesmead, who want to transfer to a housing action trust and who may be disillusioned by the defects of the housing management of the local authorities. In those circumstances the tenants can say that a vote was held, people supported the trust and therefore they have to live with it for better or for worse. In that way, although one may not get wholehearted co-operation, at least one would get an understanding that it is a worthwhile venture supported by a majority of people.
Holding a ballot was a good thing to do. When the Government did it at Thamesmead in 1985 it was the right thing to do. Why should they not agree to it now and why should they not agree to this amendment? It was because a vote was held and tenants were involved from the very beginning that there was the prospect of a housing action trust with some clout, some meaning and some possibility of co-operation from the people concerned.
This is a very simple amendment. It says that people should have the right to say what happens in their own homes. That is what the Government say. Now let the Government give some meaning to that statement. Is there anyone in this Chamber who would not be concerned if the Secretary of State suddenly said that he was taking over our homes without consultation and without giving us the right to say anything about it? That is precisely how tenants feel now. The petitions from three areas are evidence of that. I promise the Committee that the

395
feeling is the same all over the proposed housing trust areas. The Secretary of State knows that because he has met some of the tenants. The Committee will know it because the tenants concerned will certainly make it their business to ensure that we know it.
It would be very easy for this Chamber to agree to these amendments without in any way damaging the principle of the housing action trusts. That would allay the fears of the tenants and establish housing action trusts in a way in which trust between tenant, government and local authorities actually means something. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I very often agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh has to say. However, on this occasion he referred to the local housing authority as being the elected body. I should like to point out to him that the Secretary of State has also been elected. I doubt whether any high-handed action such as he fears is any worse coming from the Secretary of State than it would be if it came from the local housing authority. Such things can happen, as I well know from local organisations.
Incidentally, what he complains about is already provided for in the next section of the Bill. I can see the force of his argument but I do not believe that the action he proposes is called for in this part of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Newport: I very much support the amendment. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the Secretary of State lives in Cirencester and not in the next street, which is probably the situation in most areas which have been designated housing action trust areas. Councillors usually live locally and the tenants of those estates are able to see their local representatives. Some may even live in the next street, possibly even next door to them. Tenants can go to the council chamber; they can see the housing officer, their complaints can be dealt with. If their councillors are not satisfactory they can kick them out. I note that the other day the Secretary of State refused to meet a delegation of people from Berkshire who had gone to Cirencester: he sent his agent to see them. They were concerned about a different matter.
I am an avid watcher of gardening programmes on television; my wife is a good gardener. Some noble Lords may have seen a gardening programme the other day about a street in Peckham. It was quite magnificent; all the gardens were so well tended. That could not have come about without co-operation between the occupiers of those houses, whether they were owner-occupiers or tenants, and the local authority. It did not need a housing action area to bring that about.
I admire the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Marvels have been done by successive governments who have put money into Northern Ireland's housing situation which has been transformed since responsibility was taken away from the local authorities. It was taken away for very different reasons, about which we all know. Here in London and in other cities, surely before such draconian measures are taken and people are
396
brought in to take over whole housing estates the tenants should not only be informed but won over and certainly given a chance to vote on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave the example of Thamesmead. I cannot understand why the Government are so worried that they might lose out. Surely it is up to the Department of the Environment and its representatives to sell to the tenants the idea that if there is to be a housing action area and £125 million or whatever sum put into such schemes—with improvements being made and architects being brought in to see how the properties can be improved —it is essential to have the goodwill of the local authority for it to have any chance of succeeding. However, when the Government deal with these matters in the arbitrary way in which they have done—and I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that it is typical of the present Secretary of State —then such schemes are doomed to failure. This amendment is a vote for democracy. I beg the Committee to support it.
4 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I hate to intrude on an amendment moved by my noble friend and colleague, Lord McIntosh, but I am sure that he will understand. This section of the Bill and the question of HATs was introduced into this Chamber and another place at a very late stage. The Minister will recall that only a couple of weeks ago I questioned him on the procedure that had been adopted in the proposed removal of 450 families in Tower Hamlets in order to make way for a roadway into Canary Wharf. I made the point then to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that when conducting negotiations, finding out the views of the local authority is not necessarily commensurate with finding out the views of the tenants. The noble Lord said that the world was not perfect and he hoped that I would remember that at the Committee stage of the forthcoming Housing Bill. That is the point we have now reached.
I should like to remind him that we are concerned about the tenants and their right to determine their own future. This Government are of a party which continually talks of the individual. Surely people who have entered into a contract with a local authority and who have taken up residence in a local authority property are entitled to cast their votes when changes are proposed.
I should like to draw attention to one matter following discussion with a wide-ranging delegation that a cross-section of noble Lords met at lunchtime. To some of the group who were representing large blocks of flats in the London area —a HATs area —I put the question: what is in fact involved? I was told that there were four blocks which housed 300 family units. When I asked about the object of the exercise and whether it would mean that improvements that were being carried out could be undertaken with the people in situ, they replied that that was not the case and tint it would mean decanting the four blocks of flats.
Fifteen years ago I was chairman of housing in a local authority that started a large-scale modernisation programme on pre-war houses—not

397
flats. Decanting those people from their houses was a task of immense proportions. To return to my essential point, if one says to any London authority, "We shall put a HATs organisation in charge of your area and it means decanting 400,000 families", to where in London will they be decanted? There are no surplus houses available to local authorities in London.
Are the Government accepting that those people can just be decanted and form part of the ever-growing queue of homeless people whose number is rising quite dramatically in London week by week? I do not for one moment believe that this exercise, sprung so late in the Bill, has been even remotely thought through to its ultimate conclusion. There is no—I repeat, no—local authority in the United Kingdom that is also a housing authority, so far as I am aware, which has a surplus of houses to which it could decant people while a HATs organisation is undertaking improvements.
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh represents a minimum demand in asking for tenants to be given the right to determine their future. I do not know whether the question of decanting was covered in another place, but if the Minister thinks that this exercise of HATs can proceed on the basis of not taking into account that very important facet of house improvement, then obviously he has never dealt with housing problems in the past. In my opinion the scheme is doomed to failure when it is introduced over the heads of local authority tenants who overwhelmingly do not want it. I believe the Minister would do well to take very seriously this amendment moved by my noble friend and colleague alongside me on the Front Bench.
Lord Moyne: I was inclined to support this amendment. especially in the light of the recent statement by the Minister of Housing about the need to have the support of the people if the schemes are to work. However, when speaking today to a group of council tenants who were bringing the petitions which we know have been handed in, I found that some of them thought that their rents would increase under a Housing Action Trust and that therefore they were opposed to it.
As the true position, I learned, can only be explained individually and thoroughly after the establishment of a Housing Action Trust for an area, I feel that I cannot support the amendment. There is a chicken and egg situation here. Housing action trusts cannot present themselves until they are established. And they cannot be established until they have been agreed by a ballot. It is a difficult situation.
I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply, will give his attention to that aspect of consultation. I hope that he can at least give an assurance that "fair rents" will still apply under a HATs regime. That seems to me to be fundamental. I should wish that HATs would be established first experimentally in areas of the greatest need where local authorities for one reason or another have failed to pull up their socks, but not imposed in areas where local authorities may already be beginning to do so. In fact, if I may make a stupid pun: hats off to high socks.
Lord Somers: I am sorry to rise again, but even though a great number of noble Lords on this side of the Committee have said it is true —and I am sure that it is —is this not already provided for in Clause 61(1) in which it is stated:
"Before making a designation order, the Secretary of State shall consult every local housing authority any part of whose district is to be included in the proposed designated area".
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord makes the mistake of saying "local housing authority". We have tried to differentiate between the local housing authority and the tenants. Our main priority is the tenant, not the local authority. Very often the differences between the tenants and their local authority are quite profound. I submit that that factor is not covered in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not been following the Bill, but I have been listening very carefully to this debate. If the Labour Party's point is that it is the tenants who should be consulted and not the local authority, why did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, move Amendment No. 116A first? If that was their intention, they would not have done so. The Committee might have accepted Amendment No. 116A. The local authority would then have been consulted and not the tenant. We all know what that would have implied.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may turn to Clause 60 which defines the way in which one has to designate an area. In Clause 60(5)(b), (c) and (d) we see quite clearly the physical considerations: the way in which the local authority manage the housing, and the living conditions of those who live in the area. I do not know very much about London local authorities, or many local authorities, apart from the West Midlands. I know a lot about the Sandwell local authority because it is adjacent to the city of Birmingham. I hope that the Minister knows that part of the Sandwell local authority is in the Black Country re-development scheme. It is an area that has suffered a great deal through the closure of the steel and iron works in the Black Country. However, in spite of that, it has a well run local authority and one that is very well thought of by the residents in that area.
I was in the area about five hours after residents had received a letter from the Secretary of State. Having seen a newsflash on the television and heard it on the radio, and 10 minutes later to have a letter of that description pushed through one's letterbox, was the cause of a great deal of heartache and anxiety. The tenants were so concerned that the next day the Sandwell local authority had to hire a portable mobile office in one of the action areas to cope with literally hundreds of people who were coming to ask what was going to happen to their properties. If that is what the Government mean by consultation, there is no hope in this respect.
Sandwell is a very moderate local authority. All along it has been working with the inner city partnerships, with urban grant aid, and with civil servants. It was using the money that the Government were giving them—because it was a deprived area —usually to the satisfaction of the civil

399
servants. It is an authority which has a large ethnic minority in its midst. It is interesting that of the three local authorities —Leeds, Sunderland and Sandwell—in those areas that have come under the HATs, the leader of the council represents one of the wards inside the HAT. Of course they are all Labour-controlled. I do not draw any strong conclusions from that, although there are some conclusions that one ought to draw.
I have visited Sandwell. I know that it does not come within the category of the "physical state and design" of the dwellings, nor with the definition of the way in which the local authority is managing it. Nor does it come under the definition of the living conditions. I cannot show pictures of the local authority houses very easily but this is the comment about them:
"Most of the chosen housing action trust areas consist of good quality, well maintained properties which are amongst the most popular in the horough".
I do not know whether the Minister can see these pictures. They are housing action areas, with green trees and grass. It is good local authority housing.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Will the noble Baroness give way? I am not sure that she is in order in showing pictures in the Chamber. Perhaps she can leave them in the Library so that we can see them easily.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am sure that if I ask Sandwell local authority, it will send copies. Perhaps I may send a copy to the noble Lord himself. if I have done wrong in showing the pictures—
Noble Lords: No, no.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I think that the Minister looked at them with interest. In this action area there is a part II sheltered accommodation for the elderly which contains three well-designed warden service flats. It also has another 94 bungalows for the elderly. In the autumn a hostel is being erected which is funded by MENCAP. Further warden service housing is being carried out by a housing association. It completely refurbished a large block of 90 flats for homeless young people which will have a full-time warden and a closed entry. That is being tenanted at the present moment. The whole of the ground floor is being given over to services for advice which the young people will require.
The development is under the probation service, the social services and the local authority. It would have been finished and fully tenanted at the present time except that the homeless people unfortunately were unable to obtain their grants from the DHSS for essential furnishings. They are homeless. The Government have stopped that grant since April. The furniture that is to be provided now has to be found from another source.
For those Members of the Committee who are interested in the disabled, this hostel for young people who are homeless has a special ramp for those with handicaps. This is a scheme in an area that I know well—Sandwell—which should never have
400
been included. I know that the Minister will say that there is not a variety of mix. However, there is a variety of mix because they are six multi-storey blocks of flats. They are all empty now. It has taken two years for the local authority to rehouse all the. people who were in these flats. At the moment they are on offer to private builders, and the large contractors will demolish them and build houses for sale. One has therefore a complete mix in the area beside the houses that have been sold by the local authority. The only thing that is delaying those blocks of flats is that the Government are not paying out the city action money to the private developer, otherwise those schemes would have been started at least six months ago. It is therefore important for us to ask this question: how did the Secretary of State decide upon these housing action areas? I quote from a letter from the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to the Secretary of State:
"When Housing Act Trusts were first being canvassed, the Council made it quite clear to your Department that they would not welcome the scheme in our area, and they wish to place on record their total opposition to the proposed creation of a Housing Action Trust in Sandwell".
Why have they, when the local authority made that quite clear to the Minister in February this year when it was being canvassed, sprung a HAT on Sandwell without any notification? The tenants, the radio and the television had notice of it being declared a HAT area before the local authority received the correspondence.
When the Minister receives the delegations I believe it is important for him to make quite sure that not only the local authority's wishes are taken seriously into consideration —especially as I know the Sandwell area —because the elected council is representing the tenants and the tenants are backing the local authority.
Lord Trafford: I am afraid that I cannot follow the noble Baroness with her detailed knowledge of Sandwell, but if she gives her attention to Clause 61 she will discover that a resolution of the House has to be taken on this matter, and that would be the appropriate occasion to hear in detail about the interesting area to which she referred and described verbally. I understand she will leave pictures of that area in the Library and elsewhere.
There is a significant problem which in one way or another we have to face. That is that there are estates and areas dotted about the country in various places, but obviously more concentrated in larger cities than elsewhere, where the housing is definitely substandard and the estate gives the impression of being in great difficulty. Unfortunately, for years this has been under the control of local authorities and nothing much has been done.
It may not be the fault of the local authority. In many areas a great deal has been done, but in others it has not for various reasons. It perhaps has not been able to be done because either they cannot, they will not and have not for one reason or another achieved the objectives of improving the quality of the housing stock. It is monumental in its implications as far as concerns the inner cities. I do not believe that on either side of the Chamber there is any great

401
argument about particular areas. There is a need for action.
We have just heard from the noble Baroness that one area has just been designated where she argues that there is no need for action. This would seem to me to be a case for further argument and possibly for the procedures under Clause 61.
I wish to put one or two points to the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, who introduced the amendment. If there is this need for action and it has not happened, it is occasionally necessary that governments should step in. Governments are elected; Secretaries of State are elected; the other House is elected. There are resolutions of the House on the HATs proposals before they can come into effect and there is also, under Clause 64, a considerable amount of consultation to be undertaken on the proposal put forward by the HATs, before they take effect or before the Secretary of State can agree.
It seems to me that there are considerable protections. There is also the problem about enough publicity having been carried out. Under both clauses there are certain protections. The noble Lord asks how we would like our homes to be suddenly acquired. Our homes are nowadays suddenly acquired by the use of a somewhat arbitrary power under issues such as CPOs, which we may or may not like. We heard an example of how a road opening programme resulted in a large number of people being moved.
I am not arguing that here we are in the same kind of situation, but there are difficulties that arise in areas where something should be done, has not been done, and ought to be done in the interests of the city. That includes the tenants who live there as well. Something can and should be done. Although the noble Lord, Lord Ross, supported the amendment, he also pointed out that the intervention of central government in Northern Ireland has made a significant difference to the housing situation. I believe that to be true. That is a further example of where such selective interventions can be of great assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a great deal of this problem of tenants. If one tells tenants in the first place that a HATs proposal will inevitably result in their being rendered either homeless or forced to pay vastly increased rents it is obvious that any tenant would be inclined to vote against such a proposal. I understand that that is part of the argument (I shall not use the term "propaganda") that has been put across. If this was shown not to be true when the HATs proposal comes out or if there were improvements for the tenants in the HATs proposal, many may then say that perhaps they were wrong in trying to oppose the proposals in the first instance. They perhaps should have waited to see what would be achieved because a great many of the people in these places would say the same thing over and over again; that is: "This is not a very nice place to live. I do wish somebody would do something about it". When somebody does, of course, there are inevitably anxieties. Everybody understands that, but perhaps the action that is needed can in this way be achieved.
Lord Ross of Newport: May I draw the noble Lord's memory back to the early 1960s? Why does he think that we have all the high rise flats and high density housing that we have in the inner city areas? It was forced upon the local authorities by the Department of the Environment. I remember going to a seminar addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. It was an RICS seminar in Cambridge at which we were asked to support this very kind of design.
It is not the older type of housing that is now in distress; it is this stuff; and it was put upon the local authorities by this Government. Does the Minister believe now that a government setting up housing action trusts will be any better? I doubt it. All we are asking for in the amendments is that the tenants should at least have the case put to them and explained to them thoroughly and then be given a chance to vote on it. We have been given examples of road schemes and matters such as that. There are planning appeals, appeals to the Minister appeals to this House. They go through infinite matters. One concerning Lyndhurst was thrown out only last week by this House. So people do have their rights. In this case they will have issues imposed upon them with very little chance for them to say anything against it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: On the noble Lords' last point, there is an appeal both to the Secretary of State and to this House on the establishment of HATs, as there is on the establishment of the proposal. To take his first point, I believe that there is much in what he said about high rise flats causing many of the problems. I presume that the argument at that time would have gone something like this: "We do not have enough land to invade the green belt and we shall go upwards instead of' outwards". I always felt that that was a daft argument.
I do not believe that any of us is in the business of defending a government of whatever complexion—I believe it was Tory then, though I am not sure —over what happened in 1960. I have never been able to understand why people could not admit that they were wrong, and I believe they were wrong. Local authorities, private landlords, the developers and new towns have all been right and should he congratulated on the outcome—but sometimes they have been wrong. In the example that the noble Lord gave —and as he supports the amendment it would be the example that he gives —I could not agree with him more.
Lord Stallard: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I am always very interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. We have listened to each other for a number of years now and he always puts some interesting points. When he reads what he has just said and his comparison of a compulsory purchase order with HATs, I think he will find that on reflection it is one of the most interesting ideas yet in the field of housing. I imagine it will create a great deal of interest among those who are about to be involved in these circumstances. The fact that HATs being compared with compulsory purchase orders might raise another few questions.

403
The noble Lord also said that there was a need for action. I could not agree more. The Government have laid great stress on this. Indeed one of the planks of their arguments for all the measures that they are putting through is this question of accountability. We have had that right from the beginning of the Session in one order or another. It was to get rid of the so-called Left-wing councils or the ultra Left-wing councils. Councils had to be made more accountable. They then became the guardians of accountability and had to be accountable to the people. The HATs argument appears to turn that completely on its head.
If one reads some of the representations which were made in the consultative document one can see that all the local authority associations, including the ADC and AMA, had grave doubts about the question of accountability. They said that the HAT procedure would not work because it was not accountable to the local people; that HATs would not be accountable to the electorate in the same way as local authorities. Therefore there was a need for action to provide the resources for local authorities to do what we are saying ought to be done, if it has to be done. The need was to give local authorities adequate resources to do the job which we are discussing and which HATs may conceivably do in some selected areas.
A great deal of scepticism is involved, particularly when one notes that all the activity emerges from the few remarks made by the Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street after the result of the general election when she pledged to obtain the support of the inner cities. She was after the inner cities and she was determined to obtain their support. This links up with that and it is a weapon which the Government intend to use. They will smash any opposition if it gets in the way of' their desire, attempt and need to obtain the support of the inner cities. That is what the Housing Bill is all about and it is what the HATs are all about. They are not about accountability; they are about the opposite. The Government take away the body which is accountable to local authorities. They take away the representatives of local citizens and erect the structure of' HATs which we are now discussing.
In its response to the White Paper and since, the ADC considers that it is vital for HATs to be set up only with the agreement of the local authority. It is with agreement and not merely after consultation. I must confess that when I listen to the Minister and other Members of the Front Bench speaking about consultation I am reminded of my time as a trade union representative many years ago. Joint consultation and consultation always meant, and in many cases still mean—and that is certainly so in this case—that management came forward with a set of proposals. It presented them to the trade union representatives and said, "Take them away and come back when you have them agreed". There was no consultation; they were informed about what was to be done and they opposed the proposals at their peril.
The same has been said in this respect. This is not consultation. My noble friend said that tenants will be told what will happen in their area. They will not
404
be asked whether they think it is right or whether they have any ideas about it. What is being said is, "We are telling you what will happen in your area on the setting up of a HAT". That is not consultation; that is information. We are seeking real consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, pointed to some of the tenants' concerns about rents. Of course they are concerned about rents, which will increase. I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. He pointed out that tenants included in the HAT area will have a different person setting their rents. It is obvious that a completely different group will set the rent, decide on the quality of management and the maintenance of the estates. That will be different from the present situation. The allocation and lettings policy on the estate will be different. The quality of policy on harassment and rent arrears will be different, as will the approachability and responsiveness of staff. All those differences must have an effect on rents. When the HAT disappears and the tenants are handed over to a private landlord, they will become assured tenants and their rents will increase in any event. Therefore they are bound to be worried about the effect of the HAT proposal. The tenants will be worried about their rents in the immediate future and for some time beyond that.
Lord Moyne: I hope that the Minister will be able to set the noble Lord's mind at rest on these matters. As I understand it, the "fair rent" regime will apply for all time to sitting tenants. However, if I am wrong about that the Minister will correct me.
Lord Stallard: It can apply only for a limited time. No doubt we shall have this argument later when dealing with the alleged tenants' choice procedures. The tenants who will live in the area of a HAT will have real fears of becoming assured tenants. When the HAT disappears they will become tenants of other landlords, as I understand the Bill. They will then lose the security of tenancy which they had with the local authority. That automatically means increased rents, and there is no doubt about that. The Minister may say that that is not true and tell me that I am wrong, but I know that I am right. Someone once told me that he had a notice in his office which stated, "I know that I am always right"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If my noble friend will permit me, it is, "I have many faults but being wrong is not one of them".
Lord Stallard: I accept that.
Lord Broxbourne: In this year of the tercentenary, does not the noble Lord recall the Cromwellian injunction to the Rump Parliament? It was:
"By the bowels of Christ, gentlemen, I beseech ye, conceive it possible ye may be wrong".
Lord Stallard: I do not want to go into the tercentenary because we may well have differences of opinion about what we are celebrating and whether we should celebrate the tercentenary from where I stand. I do not want to be drawn into that argument yet. Perhaps one day I may be. I was concerned

405
mainly with the tenants in HATs and with more mundane issues connected with life as it is today.
It is not consultation, but it is information. As regards consultation I should like to refer to Clause 61(2), which provides that:
"Before making a designation order, the Secretary of State shall take such steps as appear to him best designed to secure that the proposal…is brought to the notice of persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected by the proposal-.
I do not know what the Minister has in mind, but I have yet to hear what is meant by "persons likely to be affected".
Everyone talks about local authorities, and that is quite right. Some people mention tenants—we do so —and that is even more right. However, many more people are affected by such a change in any area, as I know from my local authority experience. One must consult local authority employers who have a voice and will be affected. The local enterprise agency, where one exists, will be affected and should be consulted. The health and social services in the area must be consulted, more so because of the care in the community provisions about which we have spoken. They must be a part, and people will certainly be affected.
The police must be consulted because they are affected by every major change in any local authority area. Before making any changes most of us usually consult the police, either personally or in a group. There is no mention that the police will be involved in the consultative process. The statutory undertakers, such as water, are involved in the major changes. One cannot merely say that they are on the edge and nothing to do with the huge chunk of 3,000 or 4,000 houses which it is intended to take over and put into HATs. The voluntary organisations must be consulted because they, probably more than some arms of local authorities, are affected by changes in any district. I should like to hear the Minister say that, if the Government mean all the people who are affected, that is the list and that others can probably be added. I should like him to confirm that all those people are on his list to be consulted and that their opinions will he taken into consideration.
We know what we are talking about: we are talking about rushing through a Bill which will make it easier for the Government to do all kinds of things. However, here we are concerned to improve the Bill rather than merely watch the Minister digging his heels in. We say that the simple housing centred approach—this approach of the Minister and his noble and right honourable friends —based upon changing tenures, which is what this Bill is about, means that regeneration will not happen because the population will simply be moved from one part of the area into another.
I believe that that has been recognised in other areas where experiments like this have taken place based only on housing. The scheme has to be based on much more than that; It has to be based on all the services that I have mentioned. Unless they are consulted and their opinions and views noted in the way in which my noble friend outlined in his opening remarks, I believe that the whole scheme is doomed to failure.
406
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments as a genuine attempt to improve the situation rather than simply to accept the status quo.
The Earl of Caithness; We are discussing Amendments Nos. 116AB and 116C but many of my remarks in response to our most useful and interesting debate will cover Amendment No. 117 which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will move shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, refers to the flowering beauty of North Peckham. Perhaps I may suggest that he pays a visit to the North Peckham and Gloucester Grove estates. Perhaps I may also suggest that he sees for himself the appalling physical and environmental conditions—the rubbish, the graffiti, the empty flats and the boarded-up ground-floor housing where people live terrified behind the boarding because of the high rates of crime and vandalism. That is what HATs are being set up to change.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the booklet which my department has issued which is called Housing Action Trusts. It sets out very simply what HATs will be and how they affect those in the locality. I shall deal with some of the specific points in answer to the debate. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I have listened with great care and interest to the debate, and perhaps with more care and interest than I might have done had I not taken on my new responsibilities. As I shall be taking a more active role in this area, it has been very useful to hear what Members of the Committee have to say.
I well understand the concerns which lie behind these amendments. The introduction of housing action trusts are a new approach to the renovation and improvement of major concentrations of local authority housing. It is inevitable that people feel uncertain and a little confused about what this might mean for them. But I do not think that the way to deal with these concerns is by arranging ballots to decide whether HATs should be designated.
However much information the Government might provide in advance of the establishment of a HAT, the changes of a balanced and informative local campaign taking place are negligible. HATs will not exist and will not therefore show tenants what they could expect, the very point made by my noble friend Lord Moyne. Meanwhile those opposed to HATs will simply play on the concerns of people living in poor housing conditions and frighten them into believing that HATs will make their lives worse. There is plenty of evidence now of misleading information being generated in this way and it simply misrepresents the facts. Some parts of the speeches we have heard this afternoon are misrepresenting the situation and I shall come on in detail to that. Our objective is to set up short-life organisations which can channel resources into an area in a way which will make people's lives much better, not worse.
I therefore think it is more sensible to go through the consultative and parliamentary procedures for which the Bill provides; let tenants see what benefits HATs will bring; and then let them make informed choices about their futures.

407
Let us look at what the Government are doing to achieve these objectives. First, we said that we would ensure that all those likely to be affected by a proposal to set up a HAT would be informed about what this might mean for them. We have fulfilled that commitment. My right honourable friend wrote to every occupier in the six potential HAT areas on 11th July, the date of the announcement about the HAT areas. Attached to that letter was a sheet of paper asking those affected if they would like more information. That was set out in English, Urdu, Gujarati, Vietnamese, Punjabi and Bengali. That is a sign of the effort that we are prepared to make to ensure that everybody understands what we are trying to do.
Secondly, we said that we would consult local councils about our proposals. That commitment is being honoured too. My right honourable friend wrote to the six leaders of the councils concerned on 11th July inviting them, with tenants' representatives, to discuss the HATs' proposals with Ministers. Some of these meetings have already been held; I hope that the remaining ones will be held very soon.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I was interested to hear the Minister give a list of the languages which were made available. How did the people who were distributing them know which language the people would want?
The Earl of Caithness: Because the part to which I referred is all on one page in the six different languages so that only one sheet of paper was needed.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With due respect to the noble Earl, the copy which I have is the English copy and there is nothing on the back of it in any other language.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry about that. The last sentence of the letter says:
"In the meantime, if you would like more information about how Housing Action Trusts will work, please send off the slip enclosed and contact my department's regional office".
Attached to that is the further information and in order to understand that, it is set out in the six languages to which I have referred.
Thirdly, we have said that final decisions on the areas to be designated as HATs will be taken in the light of consultants' studies and of local views. This means, as the letters to all local people said, that if we still think later this year that the six authorities named would benefit from a HAT, my right honourable friend will consult them further and make sure that local people know what is entailed. If we then decide to go ahead with the proposed HATs, Parliament will consider them under affirmative resolution order procedures.
This all happens before a HAT can be set up. The noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Stallard, reminded the Committee of the importance of tenants in this. Once it has been established, there would be tenant representation on HAT boards; there would be tenants' advisory fora to provide a
408
way of channelling local peoples' views to HATs beyond representation on the Boards.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the Minister aware that the tenants' representatives who met the Secretary of State yesterday indicated quite clearly that they wanted nothing whatever to do with the exercise? What is the alternative, if that is the outcome?
The Earl of Caithness: I want to write down exactly what the noble Lord said as I shall return to that matter later.
Full consultation will take place with tenants HATs about their plans for the area. HATs will have to report on this consultation exercise to the Secretary of State. It will be clear to noble Lords that the Government believe that HAT will only be able to do its job properly with the involvement and cooperation of people living in the ara. That is why we have repeatedly said that HATs will put great stress on consulting tenants, asking them for their own ideas and keeping them informed about plans and progress.
But many tenants will say that this is all very well. What they are particularly concerned about is their long-term future when HATs have completed their work and come to dispose of property. And it is right that they should have a clear reassurance about that.
HATs are temporary bodies. Their aim is to give tenants decent housing, good management and maintenance services and more choice. That choice will become a reality when HATs have finished their improvement work. We hope that many tenants will want to buy their own homes but for those who prefer to continue to rent the Bill requires that HATs will only be able to transfer secure tenants and their properties to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. These might be housing associations, tenants' co-operatives or private sector landlords. In all cases, this will mean transfers can only take place to responsible, financially stable landlords whose interests lie in maintaining stock acquired from HATs for letting at rents affordable by those in low paid employment. The tenants' guarantees we have already discussed in Part 11 will, of course, apply here.
Some tenants may not like any of these options. That was one point where the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, perhaps unintentionally, seemed to indicate that the only choice for tenants after the HAT ceases is to go to a private landlord. What they may really want is to remain as council tenants. I can give the committee an absolute guarantee that that choice will be available to tenants when HATs have finished their improvement work. The Bill requires HATs to give tenants an opportunity to say whether they want to return to the council. If the council is willing, the tenants' wishes will be honoured.
I hope the Committee will agree that this represents an excellent deal for tenants. They will have their housing improved at government expense and a real choice in their futures. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was slightly scaremongering, if I may say so, about decanting in London. He spoke about housing to deal with 400,000 families.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I did not say 400,000. I said 300 families in four blocks of flats.
The Earl of Caithness: If the noble Lord reads the Official Report he will find that he referred to 400,000 people or families.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I want to correct that. I am talking about 300 families in four blocks. I want to get the record right.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dean of Beswick: The figures I gave were 300 families in four blocks of flats. We should get the record right.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. We will look at the Official Report and I hereby totally apologise to the noble Lord if I have misheard him at any stage. However, my recollection is that he referred to 400,000 and that is what I have written down in front of me.
The noble Lord is nevertheless right to raise the principle of decanting. However, we are talking about three HATs in London. We are proposing to transfer altogether some 7,000 dwellings in those three HATs. Most importantly, the vacant local authority outstanding stock in the three London authorities, which has been standing empty for more than six months, as at 1st April 1987 stood at 4,000 units. I think that that puts what the noble Lord said —it was a genuine concern—into its proper perspective.
My noble friend Lord Moyne referred to concerns about rents. The truth is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's letter makes clear to tenants that their rents will not increase before the HATs have carried our improvements. Even after the improvements, their rents would not rise out of line with council rents. Tenants will therefore be in a very much more secure and stable position than my noble friend was led to believe at a meeting earlier today or, indeed, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, raised an important point. Of course, we are at a consultation stage. I will study with interest the information that the noble Baroness has on Sandwell. The consultation process that we are having, and hope to continue not only with the local authorities but, more importantly, also with the tenants will, I hope, solve some of the problems raised.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the recent meeting between the Secretary of State and Lambeth councillors and tenants' representatives. Following my right honourable friend's letter inviting the leader and tenants' representatives to discuss the proposals for a Lambeth HAT with him, a meeting was arranged in the department's offices yesterday morning. The object of the meeting was to explain our proposals and to begin the process of hearing what tenants had to say about them. However, the tenants' representatives were not prepared to have
410
any kind of dialogue. Regrettably, they did not want to know, nor did they seem to care, about whether proposals designed to improve conditions in some very poor parts of Lambeth were worth talking about. Their primary concern was that there should be a ballot. Without that, they wanted nothing further to do with HATs. They therefore walked out of the meeting after 15 minutes.
Discussion is a two-way process. For the Government, that means making our best efforts to explain our proposals and hearing what people have to say before making final decisions. We are committed to doing precisely that. It also means that tenants' representatives must be willing to examine our proposals, to listen to what we have to say about them and pass that information fairly and squarely back to those they represent. If they are not prepared to act in that responsible manner (as the Lambeth tenants' representatives showed they were not) how can the people who live in the poor housing conditions that we want to put right make informed judgments?
The answer is that they cannot. They will be fed more and more misleading information about rents doubling, evictions, yuppies taking over their housing, and so on. In those circumstances, I repeat that the chances of a balanced and informative local campaign taking place before a ballot are nil. We intend to continue with our efforts to explain to the local people what HATs mean for them, but we remain of the view that ballots arc not the way to deal with decisions on whether or not HATs should he established in particular areas.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that he did not object to HATs in principle. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, objected in principle because he saw no need for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, said Sandwell was clearly against the principle. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was also not convinced that HATs were needed. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said that the tenants he had spoken to wanted nothing whatever to do with the exercise. Obviously the information that has been given to some of the tenants is misleading. I have in front of me a leaflet sent out by the Angell Labour Party. Much of that information is misleading. That is the real point of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh is seeking —not a better deal for the tenants but to prevent having HATs at all.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he clarify a point concerning the letter that he has which was sent to the tenants and the letter I have which was sent to the tenants? The letter I have has on the top of it the address,
"2 Marsham Street, London, July 1988".
It has the Department of the Environment stamp and at the bottom of the letter is an illegible signature, but it also has the name of Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment. Is that the same letter as the noble Earl has in front of him?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed it is.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: There is nothing in my copy of the letter, which was delivered to all the people in Sandwell, about any other language. I could not raise this matter when the noble Earl replied to me earlier because I had given my copy of the letter to Hansard. There is nothing in the letter about any other language.
The Earl of Caithness: I am concerned to hear what the noble Baroness said. I should like to discuss that with her. Attached to the copy of the letter in my possession is something different.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response has a certain bland plausibility. Unfortunately, it bears very little relationship to the situation as seen by the tenants in these estates. This arises not so much from the distorted publicity which the Minister alleges has come from other groups but from the publicity from which he himself proudly quotes. The noble Earl cannot deny that the Government's case has been put to the tenants because he has himself quoted it.
Only this morning I met tenants from five of the six local authorities concerned. I shall tell the Committee a little of what they said as regards the nature of the designation and what is felt about it. There are 300 dwellings on the Ocean estate, Tower Hamlets, comprising four different blocks. I am told that many of the tenants receive housing benefit. There is one good block upon which a great deal of money has been spent and there are three bad blocks for which the GLC, when it existed, had allocated £14 million for radical improvements to be made. The tenants told me that that proposal was stopped by the Government and that the improvement could have taken place before the GLC was abolished, but for government intervention. They now say that the blocks should be demolished. I should like to see what a housing action trust will do in those circumstances.
The Boundary estate is also in Tower Hamlets and the tenants are ecstatic about their housing. It is one of the earliest LCC estates and it was renovated by that body after the war in such a way that two flats were made into one flat of a decent size. The tenants say that apart from the condition of the brickwork on the outside, which should be cleaned, they love living there and do not want the estate changed. They have central heating and other modern amenities—everything they want. They believe that they are in a housing action trust area because they live right on the edge of the City and within easy walking distance of the City and the Barbican. The tenants believe that the intention is for the estate to be sold off for yuppie housing. The Minister used the words.The tenants believe that is what will happen because they cannot think of any conceivable reason, from the condition of their properties, why they should be included in this scheme.
The Minister quoted north Peckham. There is already joint action between the Department of the Environment and the local Southwark council. There is an estate action programme which has already started work, but in anticipation of the housing
412
action trust proposal the government money for the improvements has been frozen and work is not going ahead. The work that could have been done by agreement between the tenants, the council and central government is no longer taking place. These tenants feel very aggrieved—I am putting it mildly—now that they have learnt that they are to be handed over to a housing action trust instead of having the improvements continued which have already been agreed.
I now deal with Angell town and the Loughborough estates in Lambeth. The noble Earl referred to publicity from the Angell town Labour Party. The tenants of Angell town and Loughborough estates met the Secretary of State yesterday morning. as we were told. The Secretary of State turned his back on the leader of the Lambeth Council, saying "I do not want to hear from you; I only wish to hear from the tenants. The tenants are important". When the tenants asked, as an opening question, whether they were to have any say in being transferred, the Secretary of State brushed them off and he would not listen. He would not have anything to do with them. It was at that stage that they walked out of the meeting because their first question was treated with contempt by the Secretary of State and their elected representative, who was with them and who is, according to the Bill, supposed to be consulted was ignored by the Secretary of State.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Disgraceful!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They too have had an estate action programme but it has been frozen because of the proposal for the housing action trust.
As regards the Windmill Lane estate in Sandwell, it has had £2 million spent on it for improvements by the local authority. The sum of £125 million is proposed for the whole programme, which may be in the region of £3,000 to £4,000 for each property. That is what is proposed for the housing action trust area, but that sum will not put some of these estates to rights. The amount of money allocated by local authorities, the Greater London Council, the estate action programme and the various other programmes that exist is far more than this token gesture of central government money which is supposed to make everyone grateful.
In all these matters the Minister is speaking against the facts and against proposals which have already been implemented and which are being frozen because of the housing action trusts. I presented a petition from 4,655 tenants in Sheffield who protest against the Housing Bill. Is the Minister telling me that none of those tenants has read the elegant little leaflet produced by the department and the letter from the Secretary of State? I simply do not believe it. Is the Minister telling me that the department's publicity is so ineffective that it turns everyone in the opposite direction?
The Earl of Caithness: Can the noble Lord clarify that? I thought that when he read out the petition it concerned only the voting structure in Part IV of the Bill
Lord McIntosh of
Haringey: It did indeed, and it included tenants from estates which are affected by the housing action trusts. These are people who do not make the distinction between Part IV and Part III of the Bill and I believe they can be excused for that. The truth of the matter is that the Government are determined to go ahead with these housing action trusts regardless of the past history of the estates and of any action which is being taken by local authorities—often in conjunction with central government—to improve these estates. They are doing so for a political reason and in order to diminish and humiliate local government. That is the purpose behind these measures. The amount of money proposed for the housing action trusts is derisory compared with the amount of money provided for housing improvement programmes and which has been taken away from local authorities all over the country and not simply from the six local authorities mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who was not long in her place, accused me of wanting local authority control. I raised that matter only in order to ask the Minister the question which he has not answered but to which the answer is only too obvious. I asked the Minister whether he was prepared to impose housing action trust areas and to thrust them down the throats of local people regardless of the views of the local authorities and the tenants. The answer is all too clear. That is exactly the intention of the Government. For that reason, and if only for that reason (there are many more that I could give that reflect the views of the tenants in those areas) it is necessary to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116AB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Airedale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Chitnis, L

Henniker, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hunt, L.

Diamond, L.

Ingleby, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Jeger, B.

Ennals, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ezra, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Falkender, B.

Kagan, L.

414

Kennet, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rathcreecdan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rea, L

Kirkhill, L.

Reilly, L.

Listowel, E.

Rochester, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rugby, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seebohm, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McNair, L.

Shannon, E.

Mayhew, L.

Somers, L.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Milford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mulley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nathan, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Vernon, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Whaddon, L

Peston, L.

White, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Ampthill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead,L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Newall, L.

Colnbrook, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L.[Teller]

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dundley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Sharples, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Elles, B.

Strathspey, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sudeley, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Teviot, L.

Fisher, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fortescue, E.

Trafford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gainford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Wise, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 116B:
Page 46, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) The functions referred to in subsection (1) above shall include functions with respect to the housing of homeless people as specified in sections 65(2A) and 65(2B) below").
The noble Lord said: May I commence by offering an apology to the Minister. I understand that by a slip of the tongue during the debate on the last amendment I used the word "thousands". I unreservedly withdraw what I said. It was a complete slip of the tongue. If there has been any offence caused I naturally withdraw the word because that was the least of my intentions towards the Minister.
While one could talk for a long time on this amendment it is not the time of the year, nor I think within the mood of the Committee, to spend a particularly long time on it. The purpose of the amendment is to indicate that housing action trusts will take their share of responsibility regarding the question of homelessness in local authority areas where they are being formed by the Secretary of State.
Housing action trusts are obviously being formed in the main pressure areas, although I can think of some worse areas which have not been selected. I think it is fair to say that in some cases there are parts of the same local authority area where homelessness is perhaps the most profound problem. When the housing action trust is formed it is only fair to ask that it takes its fair share, and in conjunction with the local authority in whose area it is, accepts its responsibility on an agreed basis for a proportion of the homeless registered there. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment as the progenitor in the other place of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act as it now is. If housing action trusts do not accept their share of responsibility for housing homeless people, then that Act will be in even more disarray than it is already. As has been repeated many times in this House there are now over 100,000 homeless people in London alone, and the numbers are growing. The amendment would create a legal right for local authorities to nominate new tenants to vacancies occurring in property they formerly owned which has been taken over by a housing action trust.
I congratulate the Minister on his increased role, although I am sorry to hear that he has not received an increase in salary. I hope that the Minister will take this on board, and that he will be able to give us an assurance. If we are to have housing action trusts—and let me make this clear because of a slight misquotation —and if there is no co-operation from local authorities and the situation has become disastrous, I accept that there are some areas in the country where the Government may have to intercede. However, I think that every effort should be made first to bring the tenants onside. I fully support the amendment that has just been carried: they should at least be given the chance to vote and have the case put properly to them. There are certain rundown areas in this country, and if some local
416
authorities are so bloody-minded that they are not prepared to co-operate, then I accept that in that situation the Government have a right to intercede. I just want to put that on record, if I may.
I hope at the same time that we shall get this point over about the homeless. We are now down to a derisory 20,000-plus starts of local authority housing in housing associations. One looks forward to an increasing role for them in the future, but we have the third lowest number of starts in housing associations since 1974; it is only the late 20,000s. There is an awful lot to he done. If we are serious about trying to tackle homelessness, everybody must accept their fair share. That is why I support this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, have said about how HATs should work alongside local authorities in helping to deal with the homeless. A very similar debate took place in another place where we responded to Opposition concerns by bringing forward Clause 70. Amendments Nos. 116B and 121A now seek to impose a further statutory requirement on HATs which we do not believe to be necessary.
The key contribution that we can make to alleviate homelessness with HATs in Part III of this Bill will be to bring back into use stock which is lying void at present. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, intimated, perhaps we would intervene if local authorities are too bloody-minded. On several of the estates where the Secretary of State may decide to seek parliamentary approval to designate HAT areas, there are a large number of empty properties.
Local authorities will retain their overall responsibilities under Part III of the 1985 Act towards homeless people. In most cases HATs will be taking over a comparatively small proportion of a local authority's stock. However, because they will become landlords of stock, HATs should be well placed to help local authorities to find accommodation for the homeless.
Under Clause 70, we have imposed a duty on HATs which is exactly the same as that which applies under Section 72 of the 1985 Act to local housing authorities, new town corporations, the Commission for the New Towns, registered housing associations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. This is a duty which requires that where a local housing authority requests assistance in the discharge of various of its functions under Part III of the 1985 Act, the other bodies specified in Section 72 are required to co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of these functions as is reasonable in the circumstances.
We know that it is common for local authorities to agree nomination arrangements with, for example, housing associations —even where the authorities are not directly involved in grant-aiding schemes funded by Housing Association grant—without any further specific statutory requirement beyond Section 72. We see no reason why there should not be a similar cooperation between HATs and local authorities, with Clause 70 as the back-up.

417
However, there are further safeguards. First, we shall make clear to HATs in the management guidance which the Secretary of State will issue to them, and which will be published, that they will be expected to enter into agreement with local authorities —possibly by means of formal contracts —giving local authorities access to stock held by HATs. Secondly, the Secretary of State could use his direction-making power if he considered that HATs were not co-operating with local authorities sensibly. Against this background I believe that the Government's response to the concerns of the Opposition is helpful and reasonable.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. During the vote on the last amendment, I checked with the officials that the piece of paper to which I referred was sent out with letters. That is confirmed by a number of points that have been raised on the form that I mentioned. The West Midlands regional office has received the tear-off slips attached to the Secretary of State's letters requesting leaflets in Bengali, Urdu and Punjabi. This proves that the attachment was enclosed with the letter sent to the Sandwell residents.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I entirely accept what the Minister has said. There is a note at the bottom of the Secretary of State's letter which tells them where to apply for further information. The letter is not, as the noble Earl said, distributed in the various languages. The letter says at the bottom that if you want further information, you should write to the address given. They then send you the little leaflet. I wrote myself and said that I wanted the leaflet, which they sent me. However, that is not distributed unless it is asked for. The letter that the occupier has is only in English. It says in the Notes on Clauses that the Secretary of State will, as a first step, send "Dear Occupier" letters to all those living in the area. This letter offers a leaflet explaining the proposals, which will be in the five languages.
The Earl of Caithness: I am glad that the noble Baroness received the letter. There was nothing between us. I never said that the letter was in any language other than English. I was referring to the form attached to it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I appreciate the very detailed reply that the Minister has given on the basis that he thinks that the Government have gone far enough. I and my colleagues on this side of the Chamber do not think that he has gone far enough. The Minister seemed to be making great play of the fact that there was a reservoir of empty houses in the local authority pools in the area that could cater for homeless people. If those houses are unlettable now, I do not see why people who have had the misfortune to be made homeless should be expected to populate these houses without improvements taking place. On that basis, I think I ought to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L

Blease, L

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Milford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milverton, L.

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Flampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henniker, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L

White, B.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

De Freyne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Dudley, E.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Blyth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Elles, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Erne, E.

Butterworth, L.

Erroll of Hale, L

Caithness, E.

Fisher, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fortescue, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carnock, L.

Gainford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gisborough, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Coleraine, L.

Goschen, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Colwyn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

419

Joseph, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Layton, L.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathspey, L.

Morris, L.

Sudeley, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Torrington, V.

Newall, L.

Trafford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wise, L.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
Clause 60, as amended agreed to
Clause 61 [Consultation and publicity]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116C:
Page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State shall, in each estate in any area in respect of which he proposes to make a designation order, make arrangements for the conduct of a ballot of tenants in the estate, and no order may be made under section 60(1) above in respect of that estate unless a majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved the proposal.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide for the definition of `tenant' ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Housing action trusts: constitution]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 117, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 44 and insert ("The majority of members of a trust shall be persons who live in the designated area and before appointing any such person as a member the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to amend Schedule 7 to ensure that local residents form the majority of the board members of a housing action trust appointed by the Secretary of State. When the first draft of the Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State was required to have regard in making such appointments to the desirability of appointing people with special knowledge of the HAT area. However, in the Standing Committee in another place, and following many respresentations from people outside Parliament, the Government responded by amending the constitution on Report in another place by adding the current requirement about the desirability of appointing people who live in a designated HAT area as well as those with special knowledge of it.
At that point the Minister also agreed to consult local authorities about board appointments and announced that the Government intended to ask HATs to organise consultation with local people by creating a non-statutory tenants' advisory forum to provide a focus for generating tenants' views beyond representation on the HATs boards, and to make other consultative arrangements.
As I said before, the whole issue of local control, or tenants' control, is a crucial one because the Government's main attempt to sell the Housing Bill, especially this part of it, relies on a set of measures to encourage and promote tenants' choice. In my view many aspects of the HAT proposals are inconsistent with that approach, especially the lack of a tenants' veto on the establishment of a trust in the first place and the lack of a guaranteed voice for tenants on the hoard which this amendment seeks to redress.
The proposals also run counter to recent thinking on tenant involvement and participation in the estates which the Deparment of the Environment and most local authorites promote. Decisions made by HATs will have a major impact on residents' lives. They will manage rented property on a day-to-day basis; they will plan and implement improvement work and undertake repairs; they will fix rents and effectively decide on the future ownership of the property and deal with a whole list of other matters which I have already mentioned. In effect they replace local elected councillors to whom residents can now complain. Do the Government really expect us to believe that that is what they are now saying, after what they have been saying in parts of recent legislation? Are they prepared to defend the lack of representation, the lack of local democracy or accountability in the running of these HATs?
Having said that, the concessions that the Government made are most welcome. The Government clearly recognise that this is an important issue. They have publicly stressed the desirability of securing the services on HAT boards of people who know the areas in question. However, the concessions do not meet the basic concern that HATs should be run by, and for, local people. They allow the Minister to appoint one or two local people, but leave the control of the organisation in the hands of specialists or local dignitaries who will undoubtedly favour the Government's line. I should like to ask the Government what effective power a minority of local tenants will have as part of an 11-member board, the majority of whom are likely to be, in the Minister's words, people with management skills, housing expertise and experience.
The amendment is a compromise. We seek to compromise because the Minister has suggested that a majority of local residents on the board would be too restrictive. He also said that HATs will be under pressure to succeed in the shortest possible time and that the Secretary of State will need to find the best people with the most relevant expertise. However, this amendment recognises his concern by proposing that only the majority, not necessarily all members of the board, should be local residents. This leaves scope for the appointment of specialists if they are necessary, although it is difficult to believe that
421
outsiders know better than local residents about the needs and long-term development of their area.
The board will, after all, appoint the officers with the necessary skills and experience to run the area under its guidance. The lack of majority resident representation will undermine the credibility of HATs even before they are formally created. Local people will naturally be more suspicious of the proposal if their representatives are not to be given a guaranteed voice. A board which comprises people who share little of the day-to-day experience of living in the area is unlikely to command respect, and establishing the right structures at the start is again important if good relations are to be developed with the community in the future.
As a non-statutory advisory body the forum that has been suggested by the Minister will have no power to overturn HAT decisions. It will have no access to written information and it will have no guarantee of having its questions answered. We do not have that kind of guarantee even in this Chamber. Such a forum cannot be seen as a realistic alternative to proper tenant representation. The only way to ensure that proper representation is available is by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to expand on one or two of the points made by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Schedule 7 outlines the constitution of the housing action trusts. These will be like mini local authorities but without democracy built into them. They will have a chairman and a deputy chairman and those who serve on them will be paid. They will be almost like new town development corporations. They will be able to act without consulting the tenants, as the constitution of the trusts does not say that they must consult.
In the past, groups of tenants who had complaints or worries had direct contact with their local representatives. Local tenants' associations are quite common on local authority housing estates. They have been trying to set up tenants' co-operatives in an effort to keep some local control. They want to ensure that their voice will be heard as representative bodies of tenants. It is important that the tenants should be able to advise the trusts on the pitfalls that may arise. Some tenants will be on lower incomes, which sometimes leads to difficulties on how one arranges the buildings. It is sometimes difficult for people who live in small properties to understand how the people who live in larger properties work out the designs. It is therefore important to have a relationship between the tenants and the trust.
This amendment seeks a partnership. One can only solve the problems of the tenants in the community itself. This means talking to tenants who know the social reasons why changes should take place and who understand the physical designs of the area in which they live. It is the tenants who will recreate in the housing action areas the community spirit, which I think even the noble Lord will agree is an important factor.
We do not seek total tenants' control of the housing action trusts. We realise that the trusts must have competent officers, although I am not so sure
422
that one always needs high-powered business tycoons. I should like to feel that the Secretary of State will cast his net a little further than he normally does and will recognise, as the Housing Corporation recognises, that there is a need for equality. Equality in a trust of this description would encompass the Race Relations Act and equal opportunities for women.
Lord Somers: I should like to support the amendment. I do so perhaps for a very personal reason and therefore I shall declare an interest. I happen to live in a part of Epsom where an opportunist builder has put forward plans to build very near to where I live. It will change the whole nature of that part of Epsom. It seems to me that the people who should be consulted are the people who live in the area and who will be affected by any change. The efforts to have our case considered by the local council have, I regret to say, been met with a very half-hearted response. Something of this kind would be very opportune, and I shall therefore support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: In seeking to provide that the majority of members of HATs' boards must be residents, Amendment No. 118 is too restrictive. HATs will be temporary bodies charged with carrying out difficult tasks in a short space of time. The Secretary of State must he able to appoint to the board the best people he can find.
We intend that there should be tenant representation on HAT boards. Indeed my right honourable friend brought forward an amendment at Report stage in another place laying a requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of securing the services of people who live in the housing action trust area as well as those who have a special knowledge of it. However, we cannot require the Secretary of State to appoint in every case a majority of residents. Other qualities such as management skills and housing expertise will be relevant.
Moreover, there will be other ways in which residents will be involved in HATs. For example, we intend to ask HATs to create, in consultation with local people, non-statutory tenants' advisory fora. This will provide a focus for channelling tenants' views beyond representation on the HAT board and beyond other consultative arrangements. The forum would have a remit to advise the board on any issue of concern to tenants. We also hope that some tenants will take over the running of their property through the establishment of tenant co-operatives. HATs will of course be under a statutory duty to consult local people about their proposals for the area.
The variety of arrangements I have described demonstrates our genuine commitment to involving tenants fully in the running of HATs. I hope therefore that noble Lords will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord's speech was written before the Committee took the decision to ensure that there

423
should be a ballot of tenants before a HAT was established. The brief that the noble Lord has read is surely quite irrelevant. Now that the Committee has decided that we shall have a ballot of residents before a HAT is declared, it is surely entirely appropriate that the majority opinion should be given effect by the tenants taking an active and effective part in the administration of the housing action trust.
Lord Hesketh: The point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes is, I believe, not in any way relevant, for a very simple reason. In the light of the decision taken earlier by the Committee, a ballot would take place on the basis of what will be in existence at that time. As a result, what I have just said is relevant, whether it was written before or after the decision. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shaking his head; it is a fact. This will be part of the decision-making process. People will look at it and decide whether they like it or not in the light of the previous decision.
Lord Stallard: I shall not come between the two Front Bench spokesmen, except to say that I support my noble friend. He said exactly what I would have suggested in reply to the noble Lord's original remarks.
The noble Lord says that the amendment is too restrictive. I should think that exactly the opposite is the truth. What we are trying to do is broaden the activity, to take it away from the so-called specialist. We have had a surfeit of specialists in local authority areas; we dread specialists coming into any local authority area with their specialist knowledge. That is why we have these awful estates with their hidey-holes, cubby-holes and alleyways built for criminals and crooks, and designed to harbour all sorts of people—because specialists were responsible. We need people who understand the area, the needs, what ordinary people want and what would suit them. That is what we are trying to do—to broaden it to include those kinds of people, in order to make their voice a majority voice. Then the specialist can
advise them.
Of course, there are officers on HATs. The noble Lord mentioned the forum. I dealt with that. The forum will not have any statutory powers. It cannot overturn any HAT decisions. It will not be directly involved or have access to the paperwork. It is a non-event, paying lip service to local representation. I am not satisfied with the replies which I have received and I think the only thing left for me is to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 118) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

424

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Diamond, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vernon, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Joseph, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Moyne, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rugby, L.

Erne, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fisher, L.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Goschen, V.

Torrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Trafford, L.

425

Trumpington, B.

Wise, L.

Westbury, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 117, line 45, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall ensure that at least one member of the trust has experience of the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons and shall have regard to the desirability of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 119 and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 at the same time.
Logically, Amendment No. 121 comes first. That amendment puts a duty on a housing action trust and states that it shall:
"have regard to the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons and shall ensure that its activities do not discriminate against such persons.".
The first part of the amendment is taken from Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That section places a similar duty on local authorities. As housing action trusts will have greater powers than local authorities, it is even more important that they should have regard to the needs of the chronically sick and disabled, particularly because there is a great shortage of suitable accommodation for such people. Therefore, it is important that housing action trusts should not discriminate against the chronically sick and disabled by failing to provide accommodation for them. As regards cost, I wonder whether some of the vast sums arising from the sale of council houses, which local authorities are not allowed to use, could not be allowed to be spent for this particular purpose.
I turn to Amendment No. 119 which provides:
"that at least one member of the trust has experience of the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons and shall have regard to the desirability of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons.".
It is very difficult for an able bodied person to understand the problems that a disabled person has to face. It was for that reason that in the International Year for the Disabled I asked the Government whether they would encourage all Ministers to spend one day in a wheelchair. There was not a very great response to that suggestion. As far as I know only one Minister, the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, Sir Hugh Rossi, accepted my invitation. I only mention that because I think it is difficult for people to know just what the problems of a disabled person are unless they are disabled or have worked closely with disabled people.
I now turn to Amendment No. 120. This amendment requires a housing action trust in its annual report to include a statement of what it has done:
"to improve the living conditions of chronically sick or disabled persons within its area"
The housing action trust must also state in its annual report:
"its policy in relation to the employment of such persons.".
This would give an opportunity for a housing action trust to say what it has been able to do to improve the housing conditions of disabled people. I think that that would be a valuable consequence if the first amendment I mentioned were accepted. I beg to move Amendment No. 119.
Lord Carter: I was very pleased to put my name to this group of amendments. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has said, they are intended to ensure that the special housing needs of the chronically sick and disabled are properly looked after by housing action trusts. HATs are being given wide powers to improve the housing and social conditions in their areas. They will fail if they do not succeed in doing that. As the noble Viscount said, Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 concern respectively the appointment of a disabled member to a housing action trust and the need for a housing action trust to look after the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. Those amendments have exactly the same wording as the relevant sections in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The amendments repeat the wording of the duty as regards special housing need which was placed on local authorities by the 1970 Act. We cannot imagine that the Government intend to place any lesser duty on HATs, which will exercise most of the functions of a housing authority and the planning control and public health functions of a local authority.
Amendment No. 119 will ensure that each housing action trust will include one member with knowledge of special housing needs. Preferably that person will have such knowledge through being a disabled person. On the subject of membership of housing action trusts, it would be relevant, although we do not have an amendment down about it, to refer to Schedule 7, page 118, line 17. That concerns the disqualification of members of housing action trusts. It includes the words:
"incapacitated by physical or mental illness".
The same words occur in Schedule 5—the Housing for Wales schedule. We feel that that is careless and offensive wording. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsmen have a standard form of words for which they reach when they are drafting these schedules. We put down amendments on the Education Reform Bill to remove those words from the schedules to that Bill. The Government accepted those amendments. When the Minister replies to the amendment, I hope that he can tell us that the Government will do the same thing on Report to the schedules in this Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I welcome the HATs—
Lord Carter: I had not quite finished.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am so sorry.
Lord Carter: Amendment No. 121 states that HATs must have regard to special housing need. We believe that it is extremely important that that is stated on the face of the Bill so that representations can be made and HATs can be kept up to the mark as regards special housing need.

427
Amendment No. 120 ensures that a HAT's annual report, as required by Schedule 8, will include a statement of its action —that is the things actually done:
"to improve the living conditions of chronically sick or disabled persons within its area".
That report must also state the policy of the housing action trust as regards the employment of disabled people.
All these amendments have the common theme of a duty not to discriminate against people with disabilities and to adopt a positive policy regarding access for the disabled, the conversion of buildings and the consideration of proper adaptations to that end.
On the question of access for disabled people, I shall give an example of the practical problems that they face. I was recently involved in arranging access for wheelchairs to a building. The Committee may know that the maximum height that a lip may be and still allow access for a wheelchair is a quarter of an inch. I discovered that the builder had left a quarter of an inch lip at one end of the building and a lip of three inches at the other. I telephoned the local authority. Staff of the local authority arrived extremely quickly in order to put the matter right. As a result the building was left with a standard lip of three inches all the way round. Consequently wheelchairs could not get in at all. That is an example of a failure to understand the problems of people in wheelchairs which was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby.
I shall give an indication of the size of the problem. In the late 1970s the Department of the Environment estimated that at that time 61,420 homes needed to be adapted for wheelchairs. It further estimated that 460,650 homes needed to be adapted to make them suitable for people with other disabilities. Since the time that that estimate was issued, only 8,519 homes have been adapted for wheelchairs and 44,125 homes have been adapted for people with other mobility problems. Those adaptations were carried out by local authorities and housing associations. That means that only 14 per cent. of the homes that needed to be adapted for wheelchairs, as stated by the Department of the Environment, were adapted. Only 10 per cent. of the estimated number of homes that needed to be adapted for people with other mobility problems were adapted.
The excellent study by Shelter called Freedom to Lose, from which those figures were taken, also reveals that homelessness has risen much faster among the disabled than in the general population. This means that the special housing needs of people with disabilities are not being met. The amendments are designed to ensure that the housing action trusts take those needs fully into account.
Lord Swinfen: I support the group of amendments. I had intended to put my name to them but I was too slow. The most important amendment of the group is Amendment No. 121. That amendment would ensure that housing action trusts keep constantly in mind the work they are doing as regards people with
428
disabilities. We must remember that an increasing number of people in this country have disabilities. Medical science is improving all the time. People with disabilities who would have died in the past are now living. They need help and proper housing. The disabled include people who have suffered accidents, people who have had illnesses and children born with congenital disabilities who, some years ago, would have died in infancy or childhood. Many of those children are now living to become adults and to marry and move into their own housing units.
I can see no reason for my noble friend not to accept Amendment No. 121, and there are definite advantages to the other amendments. Amendment No. 119 provides for a representative on the trust who has experience of disability—not necessarily someone who is disabled, but someone who has experience in the way disabled people get around and the kind of equipment they need.
Amendment No. 120 would produce an annual reminder to housing action trusts of their responsibilities to physically and mentally disabled people. I consider that to be a fallback position. I would rather see a provision which made such considerations a general duty to be borne in mind on a daily basis. My noble friend Lord Hesketh, replying to Amendment No. 118, gave the impression that the housing action trust boards would be temporary and that the housing action trusts would be in place for a short time and disappear when they had done their job. It is therefore essential to agree Amendment No. 121 or a similar amendment. Once a HAT has gone, it is too late. The time for the provision is while the work is being done. The needs of disabled people must be borne in mind.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I warmly welcome the idea of HATs. As we all know from visits to various cities, there are far too many rundown areas which need to be made habitable. They are an eyesore, often unhygienic and dirty, and lead to unhappiness. I ask my noble friend to take note of what those of us who have knowledge of people with disabilities have to say about the amendments.
Perhaps I may menton a recent experience. I was asked to put up two people for two days and nights in connection with a family wedding. They are psychiatrists who are highly thought of. Both said when they left that if they had had any idea of the problems that disabled people have in looking after themselves, their homes and other people, they would have treated disabled people in a different way. They thanked me for giving them hospitality and also because they had learned so much from what I had managed to do for them. I support the amendments and I hope that the Secretary of State, although he does not like representatives on any trust, will take note of the fact that disabled people need special representation in such cases.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I also support the amendments. My experience is not as great as that of noble Lords who have already spoken. However, I have had the experience of starting a day centre for the disabled in my home town and also a college for

429
handicapped people in Birmingham. They have been a tremendous success. There should be a mixture of handicapped and non-handicapped people running organisations and serving on boards. As my noble friend Lady Macleod has said, many people do not understand how difficult life can be for the disabled. Anything which brings the disabled into the general community is to be welcomed. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: I support the amendments strongly. I declare an interest as a trustee of Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled Development Trust. I have not been a trustee for very long and my knowledge is only recently acquired. However, as a result of that experience I have a reasonable amount of knowledge of the subject. I therefore strongly support the amendments.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendments which offer very necessary protection for people with disabilities in view of the wide-ranging powers which HATs will have. The practical problems have been discussed; therefore, I shall ask only two questions. First, as regards Amendment No. 119, which I strongly support, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on finding a reference relating to the removal of a board member on grounds of incapacitation by reason of physical or mental illness. As the noble Lord said, we removed four such references from the Education Reform Bill, two of which were discovered by the Government. Perhaps we can track down the source of that objectionable and confusing wording. is it in an earlier Act? Can it be found and eradicated at source so that we shall not have to keep on deleting it every time it crops up in a new Bill?
My second question relates mainly to Amendment No. 121. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said, it is the most important amendment in the group. It seeks to protect disabled people not only by accentuating the positive but also by eliminating the negative aspect. That is sadly necessary in the absence of anti-discriminatory legislation. If the Government cannot respond positively to the amendments by accepting them or by coming back at Report stage with an amendment which meets our points, will the Minister say what safeguards are contained in the Bill to protect disabled people in relation to HATs? The trusts have wide powers. Will they have the same duties as local authorities as regards people with disabilities?
Lord Milverton: I wish to support the amendments. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel able to accept them. I feel sure that they are deserving amendments and that it is right and proper that they should be accepted. I say that as a result of attending meetings of the All-Party Disablement Group and being able to hear and absorb information from many others who know far more about this subject than I do. As one learns about the needs of the disabled one realises how important it is for those with expertise to do all, they can to see that those needs are catered for. I sincerely hope that Her
430
Majesty's Government will be able to lend a hand and support these amendments.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I could deal, first, with literary matters. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew the Committee's attention to certain imperfections in the drafting of the Bill. In the light of the noble Lord's comments I can assure him that we shall reconsider the wording.
I fully appreciate that the reason for moving these amendments is genuine concern for chronically sick and disabled people. Of course we share that concern. A major point is raised by the noble Lords' Amendment No. 121, which seeks to apply a provision similar to Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which applies to local housing authorities. Local housing authorities are required, under Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to have regard to the special needs of the chronically sick and disabled in discharging their duty under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985.
Section 8 requires local housing authorities to consider housing conditions in their district and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation. Like the rest of Part II of the 1985 Act, it may be applied to HATs by order of the Secretary of State under Clause 65. As it may be that the Secretary of State would wish to apply Section 8, I agree with Members of the Committee that there is a good case for considering Amendment No. 121. Members of the Committee will also, I hope, welcome other steps we are taking.
Clause 63 includes as one of HATs' objects improving accommodation, and that will obviously also apply to any accommodation occupied by the sick or disabled. In the management guidance issued to HATs we shall be drawing their attention to the publications on housing for the elderly and disabled, including the recent departmental publication House adaptations for people with physical disabilities.
The management guidance will also lay down guidelines on their conduct in matters such as employing staff. They will be encouraged to adopt recruitment and personnel management practices which meet the standards expected of public service employees and in particular we shall be drawing HATs' attention to the Cabinet Office Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People. HATs will be expected to recruit staff through fair and open competition (subject to the assurance that Ministers have given that local authority staff currently employed in connection with the housing taken on by HATs will be given first consideration). As NDPBs, HATs will not be subject to the regulations under the Companies Act 1980 which requires companies to detail in their annual reports the steps taken to promote the employment of disabled people. However, I am willing and indeed happy to agree that we should ask HATs to adopt a similar procedure in their annual report.
On the question of appointment of board members, as I have already said in relation to Amendment No. 118, it is not considered appropriate to place any further constraints on the Secretary of

431
State. It is important that he is able to appoint to HAT board members with the most appropriate range of skills. It may well be that one or more members may have the expertise that the noble Lord is seeking in this amendment. But even if that does not happen, the other provisions which we propose to make should ensure that the needs of disabled and chronically sick people are fully recognised: and I have no doubt that the tenants' advisory fora which we propose HATs should establish will make these needs clear to HAT boards.
I hope that, in the light of my undertaking to consider applying Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and my explanation of our intention to guide HATs on these matters, the noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw these amendments.
Viscount Ingleby: I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for his encouraging words. In the light of his remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Housing action trusts: finance etc.]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Objects and general powers of housing action trusts]:
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 48, line 14, at end insert—
("(bb) to encourage landlords to make their properties available for short-term renting to homeless families, in particular properties which are empty at certain regular times of the year because the tenants occupying them have contracted with the landlord to occupy the property only at fixed periods during the year,-).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a follow-up to an idea which I floated in this Chamber on 20th January when we had a substantial debate on homelessness which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. On that occasion I drew attention to the very high proportion of students in higher education who leave their parental or marital home to study. I said that if only some 50 per cent. of those took a course near to their home and lived at home we could solve the problem of homelessness in three years.
I understand that that is a fairly far-reaching proposal. I do not intend to pursue it here tonight except to say that the Minister in his winding up speech in that debate was kind enough to say that it was a very radical proposal. Radical proposals such as this take a long time to become accepted.
The purpose of the amendment I am putting to the Committee tonight is simply to encourage people with properties which are empty at regular times during the year to let out those properties to homeless people and to ask the housing action trusts to coordinate and encourage that work.
Obviously the principal source of such accommodation is the halls of residence of universities and polytechnics, and also university housing which stands empty for two or three months during the summer vacation. It is true that as a fund-raising exercise over the years universities have begun a drive to let that accommodation for conferences seminars and even for holidays. Therefore much of it is already being used. However, I know that the take-up is by no means 100 per cent. and there must be substantial amounts of accommodation which is free during that period.
That accommodation would be available for only a short period of time and obviously the homeless could not stay there when students are due to return. However, for at least six weeks or two months those families who are living in appalling conditions could have the comfort of civilised surroundings and a regular regime. The universities and higher education generally would be making a contribution to the problem we face.
Those in higher education have received a great deal of attention during the course of the education debate. Indeed, I think that this Chamber might well have dwelt rather more on the large majority of children who never get a chance to go into higher education. Here is an opportunity for universities to make a contribution. I believe that it would be a very good thing if the housing action trusts were to coordinate and encourage such work which would also initiate a very useful cross-fertilisation between some of the ablest people in society and some of the most deprived. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe is certainly deserving of examination. I recall some years ago paying a visit to Denmark on a 10-day housing trust study. We were based at the University of Copenhagen during the vacation. The buildings were put into use during that period to house a variety of people and their scheme was successful.
I believe that there are difficulties but, as my noble friend has said, the scheme is worthy of consideration as a means of alleviating one of the worst features of our present housing problem at certain times of the year.
Lord Trafford: I take the point and support the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. He has a point. I remember his floating the idea earlier in the year, and there is much to be said for it. My difficulty would be the position that he has chosen to try to move this amendment; namely, in terms of Clause 63, at line 14 on page 48.
First of all it seems to me that the term "landlord" may be incorrect. In the circumstances of this Bill the landlord would be the HAT and not a specific person. If the noble Lord meant tenants letting rooms that were previously let to students, I think perhaps that would have been appropriate. In other words, I am not sure that the drafting fits this point. However, I think that the objective which he has put forward is certainly most interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, is known as a fount of radical

433
and new ideas with which he occasionally delights this Chamber. I am delighted to say that it is a splendid idea, but it seems to me that the amendment is drafted in a way that would make the clause as it stands somewhat unintelligible.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I find this an interesting amendment and I am happy to support it in the form in which it is drafted. There is an opportunity with this amendment which could be used. It is possible that one or two words of caution may be worth uttering also.
I think that there is some advantage in university students going away from home to complete their education. That in itself is an educational benefit. I must say that I feel that as strongly as a parent as I once felt it as a child.
Another point which one needs to bear in mind is that university students are not always absent from university during vacation. At the moment a number of my own pupils have to read a series of set texts during the long vacation and some of them absolutely must be in London because those texts are not available anywhere else. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this is a proposal which would need a little room for flexibility in drafting.
However, with that proviso, universities are aware of their social responsibilities in the world and care considerably about them. I believe that this is an opportunity and I hope something will be done with it.
Lord Swinfen: I too think that this is an interesting suggestion. However, I wonder whether residential buildings for higher education should not be used during the holiday period of current students for residential courses for other students, so that the buildings are used throughout the year for purposes of education.
My main problem with this amendment is that the people whom it is proposed to house in this accommodation during the vacations are by definition homeless. They have nowhere to go when the students are due to return. I think that many universities and polytechnics, as well as housing action trusts, would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining the accommodation again so that it would be available for the students when term started.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should like to say a few brief words. I too support the spirit of the amendment. I apologise to my noble friend because I was not able to be in the Chamber for the beginning of his speech. However, the use of university buildings for courses of one kind or another has been mentioned, and as one who has benefited greatly from summer courses at universities I believe that that is something that should be borne in mind.
Universities in general have now become conference centres which are widely used for assemblies of various kinds: commercial conferences and not just educational meetings in the narrow sense of the words. Yet a third aspect of this subject relates
434
to the fact that university campuses—some of which are very beautiful—are now used as holiday centres.
When the Minister replies perhaps he would like to say something about the financial arrangements. Obviously many noble Lords would like to see homeless families housed in such accommodation, which by definition would be for a limited period, but it seems to me that since universities are well established on the conference circuit and for holidays there might be some rather complicated financial arrangements to be made should my noble friend's amendment be accepted by the Committee.
Lord Trafford: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may suggest that he is speaking on a slightly different point from that of this amendment, which does not necessarily apply to university accommodation. Only approximately one-third of students at a university are accommodated on campus and that is the part that is used for conferences, and so on.
As I understand it, when moving the amendment his noble friend referred to people who would use accommodation which housed students and not just the outlying buildings off campus, so to speak. I doubt very much whether a university would be subject to a HAT.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The question was put to me, and I apologised for not being able to hear the beginning of my noble friend's speech where perhaps he dealt with that matter. Having said that, it is not the first time that this idea has been suggested. As I interpret the amendment, the proposal is that the on-campus accommodation of the university be used for this and similar purposes.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may raise another practical point with regard to this problem of housing homeless people. At the moment a large number are housed in hotel accommodation which specialises in letting to homeless people. Some of the hotels make a large profit. If homeless people are to be housed during the vacations in accommodation that was used by students, it means that those hotels will probably go bust and go out of business. Therefore there will not be hotel accommodation available for the homeless to use during term time. I think that this proposal could exacerbate the situation.
Lord Hesketh: While I sympathise with the noble Lord's concern about the problems of homeless people, I do not feel that the particular vehicle that he has chosen in his amendment to try to help them is a very good idea. The main purpose of HATs is to deal with areas of rundown local authority housing of which they will temporarily be taking over the ownership. It is unlikely that there is much if any property of the sort he describes in the areas so far announced as potential HAT areas, though it is theoretically possible that there may be some in the future. However, we feel that to place the encouragement of landlords to make student accommodation available to homeless families among the HAT's primary objects in Clause 63 rather unbalances what we have set out for them to do.

435
I am not quite sure how we managed to get on to universities because the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, does not make any mention of universities in his amendment. So far as we are aware, there is no university accommodation in any of the proposed HATs areas.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I am grateful for the response there has been to my modest little effort, which I may say has been much warmer than the response I had from Bristol University in the early 1970s when I first began to promulgate this idea. In addition to being a fount of radical proposals as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said, I am also fairly obsessional when I get a bee in my bonnet. That is why I thought that the HATs might be a peg on which to hang it.
I apologise for the infelicities in the drafting, but I am encouraged by the response that this little kite has received. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Housing action trust as housing authority etc.]:
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Transfer of land and other property to housing action trusts]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 121B:
Page 55, line 36, after ("area") insert (", except dwelling-houses excluded from the provisions of Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (Right to Buy),").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 125A. These are amendments on a comparable theme with the immediately preceding debates. In effect, this amendment would exclude from the property taken over by a HAT any special needs housing already excluded from the right to buy.
It has been done for a very good purpose. The genesis of this amendment arose in this Chamber. At present there are certain exemptions to the right to buy. The main ones are homes provided or adapted for use by people with physical disabilities or for people who have or have had mental disorders or who are elderly. Those homes shall not be subject to the right to buy.
Such exemptions exist largely due to the insistence of this Chamber in earlier legislation. I remind noble Lords who took part in the debate of the reason why this Chamber accepted the position. The local authority has a primary role in providing special needs housing. It was unacceptable that it should be lost to the public rented sector. The Government have shown that they still accept that argument by
436
excluding those properties from the provisions of Part IV of the Bill. The amendment seeks to exclude the provision from Part III of the Bill.
The major government argument may be that since HATs will take over whole estates it could be very difficult in management terms to isolate small numbers of special needs homes. Nothing is impossible: where there is a will there is a way. The Government reconciled to being sympathetic on this point, have also to be consistent.
We have always contended that it is the "pepper-pot" argument that the Government have been rejecting on Part IV of the Bill in another place. The properties about which we are talking are usually grouped. It is a large hole in the pepper-pot that we are considering. They are not isolated properties but very often a small group, conveniently placed together to share common services, with a warden service of some kind. They are not usually isolated in that sense.
In the vicinity of HATs areas will be many properties which have not been transferred and which the local authority will still be managing. In other words, we think that there is a reasonable case for taking properties for people who already have great difficulties and whom we think should remain as undisturbed as possible out of the ambit of a HAT. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I cannot agree with the noble Lord, although, like him, I am interested in and concerned about, proper housing for disabled people. I can see no reason why housing action trusts should not improve accommodation that has been especially adapted for disabled people as well as for those who are not disabled. A number of specially adapted flats are in blocks of flats. It is impractical for a block of flats to be acquired by a housing action trust with one or two flats excluded.
The noble Lord also said that this special accommodation was normally grouped. It may be normally grouped; it is not always grouped. People who become disabled through accident or through illness can have their accommodation specially adapted for their needs. These properties are very often one-off. They may not necessarily be bungalows. They may not be flats. They may be a house of one kind or another with adaptations. It may be one in a complete road. Therefore, from the practical point of view, I disagree with the noble Lord.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I understand and sympathise with the reasoning behind the noble Lord's amendments Nos. 121B and 125A. However, I hope to be able to convince him that they are unnecessary.
HATs will be concerned to deal with all the rundown housing within a designated area. We recognise that these areas might include specialised housing of the type excluded from the right to buy and tenants' choice provisions including those occupied by tenants with particular needs. However, the wellbeing of tenants is central to the HATs policy and while we believe that tenants would benefit from

437
the presence of a single-minded body devoted to improving the area and its housing, particular care will he taken in reaching decisions on boundaries and the transfer of properties to consider what the best option is for tenants in housing specially designed for the old and disabled. We shall listen carefully to the views of local authorities about whether it is a good idea to transfer particular dwellings to a HAT.
If there are cases where such housing is transferred to HATs we shall make sure that they follow the best practice in managing it. I have explained in response I o earlier amendments to Schedule 7 the duty we are considering imposing on HATs to consider the needs of chronically sick and disabled persons and other arrangements we are making to promote their interests. In issuing guidance to HATs we shall draw to their attention the literature produced by the department on housing for the disabled and elderly including the recent publication House adaptations for people with physical disabilities. Where accommodation is let in connection with employment it may well be appropriate to transfer it if, for example, a caretaker is going to transfer to employment within the HAT.
In cases where the transfer of specialised elderly and disabled accommodation has been approved to the HAT, great care will be taken over its subsequent disposal and there will be full consultation with tenants. Some accommodation may be returned to the local authority. Another possibility would be transfer to a specialised housing association with experience in dealing with the specialised needs of such tenants. In 1987 nearly a third of all new lettings were to elderly tenants. Over a quarter of all housing association homes are for the elderly or wheelchair units for the elderly. It is hardly likely that a housing association will change the use of such stock. The tenants' guarantee requires registered housing associations approved by the Housing Corporation to pay special attention to specific housing difficulties experienced by particular groups, including the disabled. Any other post-HAT landlord would have to conform to similar requirements.
In the case of accommodation let in connection with employment it is possible that there is more chance of a change of use being deemed appropriate—if, for example, the redesign of a building meant that it was necessary to move a caretaker into different accommodation, or if the redesign of a block of flats meant that it was no longer necessary to employ such a person.
It is because these sorts of eventualities are possible that I am resisting Amendment No. 125A although I assure the noble Lords that I understand their concerns. As I have said in relation to Amendment No. 121B, at the first stage we shall give extremely careful consideration to whether transfer of such property to a HAT is appropriate and we shall also take extreme care in considering who is an appropriate future landlord for this type of property —someone who, we can be sure, will do the utmost to ensure that the needs of the tenants are met. We also intend to make subsequent disposals by post-HAT landlords subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. This will act as a further check to
438
ensure that this type of accommodation is put to best possible use in meeting needs.
In the light of these assurances I hope the noble Lord will agree that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I say at once that I do not intend to press the amendments in the light of what the Minister has said. We would have wished to have on the face of the Bill words giving, if not an absolute guarantee, then much greater security and peace of mind to the people affected. I am satisfied in two respects with what the noble Lord said. First, at an appropriate stage the local authorities in whose areas HATs are situated will be provided with the opportunity for consultation and discussion on whether these kinds of properties should be included or excluded. The Minister was not able to say that they could be excluded. He was saying that they might very well be excluded if, after discussion, the local authority was of the view that they ought to be excluded for very good social reasons. I am satisfied with the bona fides of what the Minister has said in that regard.
I am heartened by the measuring rods and yardsticks to which the Minister referred—I and others will read tomorrow what he has said with—regard to the intentions and aspirations of those who will be in charge of a HAT. We on this side of the Chamber have little confidence on this aspect. When commercial viability enters into the considerations, altruism towards the disabled, the elderly and the diadvantaged does not normally form a major part of the imperative of those primarly concerned with making money from whatever they are involved in. Although local authorities feel wretched about trying to carry their burden, they are still better placed than many others to try to make provisions of the kind we are discussing. The Minister has gone some way towards reassuring me that it is all up for grabs.
When the Minister's colleagues sit round with local authorities, produce further evidence and put flesh on the bones of an idea, we want to make sure that the elderly and the disabled—two groups, incidentally, that do not figure very largely in tenants' choice and in the scheme of things by the Minister—have a fair crack of the whip.
The Minister has gone some way to satisfy me that he intends to see that that will happen. Whether is happens remains to be seen. I am grateful for the comfort that the Minister has given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 121C:
Page, 56, line 6, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) above, where the financial terms referred to in that subsection include a reference to a sum equal to the market value of the local authority housing or other land or property transferred under this section payable by the housing action trust or by the Secretary of State to the local authority, the said sum shall be paid to the local authority on the date on which the said local authority housing or other land or property is transferred to the housing action trust under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Amendment No. 121C relates to the general theme of caring for special categories in this matter. Clause 74 allows the Secretary of State to transfer housing and other property from the local authority to the HAT on any terms, that he thinks fit, including financial terms. In another place ministerial colleagues of the Minister who is to reply to the debate said that the transfers would be at market value. The amendment proposes that where the terms of the sale refer to market value the amount should be paid in full in a lump sum on the date of the transfer.
The amendment requires that the local authority be paid a lump sum as a capital receipt on the date of transfer. We are worried that having taken property away from the local authority, possibly without its consent, the Government will not pay proper compensation for the property. We are worried that the Government will create a mechanism whereby the local authority receives payment for the property only in dribs and drabs.
It would be useful to have the Committee consider what the Minister in another place said when the discussion on Thamesmead in South-East London was taking place. In Committee the Minister said:
"this is relevant… in the sense that we have said there might be circumstances where there was no single payment on the transfer, because the position might arise where negotiations with the local authority, the district valuer and so on means that the safest way of valuing future receipts into the HAT through sales, or whatever, is to say that the local authorities should have a share of those future sales. That might be to the advantage of the local authority. For example, if the HAT is very successful, brings in considerable money, raises the value of the property, tenants buy —with a discount—and so on, it may be more valuable than it is easy to predict. Therefore, it may be sensible for the local authority to say that it will hedge its bets and take a share of any future sales because it will then receive a share of the benefit of the capital that the HAT is spending. That may be a route that local authorities may wish to explore, which is why we have kept open the possibility of no single, one-off payment. I assure the honourable Gentlemean that where a single, one-off payment is agreed, there is no (intention) to refuse to pay a local authority properly for whatever has been contracted". —[Official Report, Commons, 18/2/1988: col. 963]
We have, as often in these situations, something to look at. We do not need to look into a crystal ball, because there is a page of the book and it is called the Thamesmead precedent. We are worried by what happened in the Thamesmead example because it is central here.
After the GLC was abolished the estate was taken over by the London Residuary Body. The task of the LRB was to sell the property to Thamesmead Town Limited, which is now the owner. LRB was acting on behalf of London ratepayers and wanted to get the best price for the estate, particularly as the ratepayers would be left having to pay off a debt of £130 million. Naturally enough the company wanted to pay as little as possible. The Secretary of State had to give his consent before the sale could go through. In other words it was the Secretary of State, in essence, who controlled the financial terms of the transfer. He had to balance the interests of the buyer with the seller. In other words he was in exactly the same position then as he will be when it comes to setting the terms of the
440
transfer from the local authority to the housing action trust.
What happened at Thamesmead? The district valuer was called in and valued the estate at £25 million, but there was a problem. The company could not afford to pay £25 million. Instead the Secretary of State imposed a transfer for just £2.5 million; a tenth of the market value—just £400 per house.
The Government will say —and this is quite true —that that may not be the end of the payments. Additional payments will be made according to the rate at which the company sold off its property. That is the precedent for the Minister's recent statement. Until 1999 the company will pay nothing more if sales of houses are less than 150 a year, but it will pay 85 per cent. of receipts from sales between 150 and 200 per year and 75 per cent. of receipts over that level.
It is all very well for the Government to say that the agreement between the two sides might state that and that the Government want to leave themselves some flexibility. That might be all right if we were operating in a free market as buyers and sellers or were in a situation where the local authority could freely decide whether or not to enter into an agreement. But we on this side of the Committee are asking simply—we are taking advice, of course, from outside the Committee —for the Minister to agree that, in circumstances against their will, if properties are taken out of local authorities' ownership and influence, the price which is agreed should be paid over to them in one fell swoop. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether the Minister can help me? What is the position of purchasers of stock on the open market offered for sale by a local authority secured on housing that might be taken for housing action trusts?
The Earl of Caithness: I shall deal with that last point first. I should need to look into the details, but as my noble friend is aware we are talking about a very small percentage of the housing stock of a local authority in whose area there might be a HAT. From the very definition of HAT and the type of property that the HAT is designed to try to look after, or improve, for the benefit of the tenants, I know that my noble friend as a valuer will soon spot that that will not be the highest valuation of local authority property.
I repeat our firm intention that transfers of property from local authorities to HATs should take place at market value subject to tenancy. This market value would be determined by the Secretary of State on the advance of the district valuer. Amendment No. 121C would bind the HAT to pay to a local authority the full market value of the property on the day of the transfer. It would prevent the transfer going ahead before the terms of transfer had been settled and would prevent there being any flexibility in the arrangements. I must point out that such flexibility might be to the local authority's advantage. If there are likely to be substantial right-to-buy sales on properties transferred to a HAT, the Secretary of State might agree that the local housing authority should elect to receive the proceeds of such sales, or a proportion of them, in a series of staggered

441
payments —the point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, just made.
Theoretically there should be no difference between the two methods of payment in terms of the total sums received. However, it might be more convenient for the local authority to receive the money over a period of time rather than all at once.
Market value subject to tenancy will give local authorities what their properties are worth; no more, no less. We intend that market value transfer payments to local authorities from HATs be treated as capital receipts for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We shall shortly be discussing an amendment which we wish to introduce to the Bill to clarify this.
Obviously I should like to read in detail what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. From my experience of negotiating with local authorities I can say that some of the best deals which I did with them were in respect of staggered payments. Local authorities soon saw the benefits of them.
I must say that I should be reluctant to close the door to the noble Lord because the advantage of flexiblility exists. However, I should like to read what he said between now and another stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I intend to withdraw the amendment. I was interested to hear him argue for flexibility. Is that flexibility a two-way street? Or is that flexibility for the Minister of State when he wishes to vary an understanding by saying that he will exercise flexibility and change it? If flexibility is part of an understanding, does that mean that, whatever the Secretary of State has agreed, the local authority has the right to say that it will exercise its flexibility in a different way?
I believe the Minister knows that, at the end of the day, if the local authority wish to do something that he does not wish them to do, he will be the master. To that extent we are in the same position. If the Minister is saying that he is in the ball game of trying to persuade local authorities that it is in their interests to accept their payment, which is fixed at the market value on the date of the transfer, not in a lump sum, I can understand the attitude of the local authorities.
I had a doom-laden feeling when the Minister said that the payments would be treated as capital receipts. In other words, a council sells a house to a private individual and receives £20,000 but is able to use only part of it, which is varied flexibly —in other words, when the Minister says what he wants to do. We are saying that, if a house is transferred at a value of £20,000, that will occur in exactly the same way. I do not make a point of it but the Minister knows that every local authority of every political persuasion intensely dislikes the burden on its back of improving the housing stock. It will have the money yet the Minister and his colleagues, for their macroeconomic reasons, will not allow it to use it.
I am grateful. The Minister will know that during the long Recess those outside will read what has been said. It may be that at a later stage he and I can come back with an amendment which is acceptable to both
442
of us. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: I should like to suggest that this is a suitable moment to break for dinner. With the agreement of the Committee, I propose to resume the House and return to Committee when the dinner business is complete. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1988
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the two sets of draft regulations before us are concerned with increasing the cost limit on work which a solicitor may provide under the Advice and Assistance scheme (which incorporates ABWOR) without prior approval of the board, and with extending the availability of assistance by way of representation.
The Advice and Assistance (Prospective Cost) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 will increase from £50 to £60 the cost of legal advice and assistance (including assistance by way of representation) which a solicitor may grant without the prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. While this proposed increase has the agreement of the Law Society, we also have in mind to lay a further regulation in the autumn to provide in future for a two-tier limit This would allow a solicitor to grant, without the prior approval of the board, a further £90 of expenditure in certain specified circumstances. But that will depend on whether the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is amended to provide the necessary vires, as we have proposed in the Legal Aid Bill, which now awaits Royal Assent.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 would extend the availability of this form of assistance (known for short as ABWOR). The extension would cover summary appeals to the Sheriff, against detention in hospital under various provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, and against guardianship orders; circumstances where an accused has pleaded guilty without legal representation and is required to attend subsequently in court; and circumstances where the court orders a proof in mitigation. In addition, to allow an early change of plea, ABWOR would remain available until 14 days after a plea of not guilty had been entered. These changes would simplify and clarify the application of legal aid cover and the availability of the ABWOR arrangements, and have been proposed to deal with problems experienced in the accessiblity and administration of legal aid.
The improvements which these amendments to the present Legal Aid Regulations would achieve, while significant within themselves, are part of an important package of improvements which will apply from 1st August. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on llth July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as regards the first regulation, we do not dissent from the inflation-proofing of the legal aid limits. We shall be interested to see the two-tier limit when it is introduced and have no objection to it—that is, if it is introduced, and if the Legal Aid Bill receives Royal Assent, as I assume it will.
As regards the second regulation, again we have no objection. It appears to be appropriate. It is one of a number of changes which are necessary as the Government discover the difficulties of running legal aid. No doubt there will be many more changes as they continue to discover the difficulties which we forecast in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill as it went through this House. We have no objection to the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on llth July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988
7.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved. The Order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
We are debating today a code of practice which will govern the procedures by which police officers tape record interviews with suspects in police stations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to
444
issue this code, which will be the fifth and final code to be issued under the Act.
The four existing codes came into force on 1st January 1986. They deal with the stopping and searching of persons; the searching of premises and the seizure of property; the detention, treatment and questioning of persons; and the identification of people. These existing codes are not affected by the code which we are debating today and which will provide additional safeguards for the rights of suspects.
The purpose of tape recording is that, in the event of a dispute about what was said in an interview at a police station, there should be recourse to an accurate and reliable record. I feel confident that your Lordships will join me in welcoming tape recording as an important development in our criminal justice system.
I should like first to say something about the purpose and the effect of the code. The effect of the order which we are now debating will be, subject of course to approval by this House and in another place, to bring the code of practice into operation in the sense that it will then be available for use. But the tape recording of interviews itself, which will be in accordance with the code, will not be mandatory until a further order to this effect is made (under Section 60(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in relation to a particular defined area.
It is our intention to make these orders under Section 60(1)(b) requiring tape recording to be carried out in accordance with the code only when tape recording is being carried out satisfactorily on a voluntary basis in the area concerned.
Once an order has been made requiring the tape recording of interviews in respect of specified offences at police stations, the provisions of this code of practice will be binding on all police officers who conduct such interviews in the area in question. Failure to follow the provisions of the code may constitute a disciplinary offence.
An abuse of the code could also become a matter for consideration by the courts. Section 67 of the Act specifically declares the provisions of the new and existing codes admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. If the code has been breached during an investigation in a way which reflects upon the reliability of the evidence which has been obtained, then the court is obliged to consider that fact. That is an important further sanction.
Perhaps I may now explain how we arrived at the code of practice on tape recording. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure recommended the gradual introduction of tape recording to be used in indictable cases for the making and reading back of a summary at the end of the interview. The Royal Commission's recommendations were based on the correct assumption that producing transcripts of the whole of each interview would be prohibitively expensive. The Government wished to go further, and we proposed a scheme in which the whole of the interview would be tape recorded.
In order to avoid the difficulties which were foreseen by the Royal Commission, we proposed that, subsequent to the interview, the police officer

445
should provide a written summary which would, in most cases, meet the needs of the defence and prosecution. Where there was disagreement on the summary, the tape could be played in court. By these means the need to produce a transcript could be avoided in the great majority of cases.
These procedures were tested in field trials in six areas over a period of two years. The field trials were overseen by a national steering committee, chaired by the Home Office and with a wide membership, which included representatives from all parts of the criminal justice system. The national steering committee drew up procedural guidance for the field trials which formed the basis for the present code of practice.
The field trials went well. They suggested that tape recording offered a number of benefits. For example, suspects were brought to police stations more quickly; interviews were shorter, more natural and more effective; there was an increase in the number of admissions and confessions; there were fewer challenges to police evidence in court. The Government therefore decided that tape recording should become standard practice in police stations in England and Wales. They decided on a five-year programme, with completion in 1991.
Phasing is important for two reasons. It gives those affected throughout the ctriminal justice system time to adapt. And it enables the costs to be spread. A first draft of a code of practice was published for consultation in September 1986. Subsequent consultations have taken longer than we had hoped. But discussions have centred on procedural matters, notably the purpose and content of the written record produced by the police officers. There has throughout been full agreement on the desirability of tape recording.
As I said earlier, the procedures set out in the code require the taping of the whole of the interview. The written record which the police officer produces subsequently is in effect the cornerstone of the system. If it is to be relied upon by the prosecution and the defence in the majority of cases, it must be produced to a high standard. Detailed information about the content and the preparation of the record of interview will be set out in a circular to police forces which will accompany the code.
I must also pay tribute to the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has arranged for the production of a training video which is now being widely distributed.
The arrangements to provide reassurance to suspects that the tape has not been tampered with are simple and, we believe, effective. They involve the production of two tapes with one being sealed immediately in the presence of the suspect. This seal cannot be broken except, normally, on the order of the court. This procedure naturally favours the use of a twin-deck tape recorder although the code has been drafted in a way which does not rule out the use of single-deck machines.
These essentially simple procedures are set out in the code of practice. But any of your Lordships who may be familiar with the procedural guidance
446
which are not dealt with in the code. This is for the simple reason that they will be outside the code.
I can assure your Lordships that these comparatively detailed, but nevertheless essential, matters will be fully covered in the Home Office circular which will go out with the code. This circular has also been the subject of consultation and will be widely distributed.
Before concluding, there are one or two further points which I should like to make. There is no requirement in the code for the taping of interviews with a person who is being questioned in respect of terrorist offences or in respect of offences under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. The field trials of tape recording did not extend to terrorist interviews and, in the absence of any practical experience, we believe that it would be unwise to introduce tape recording on a general basis for thee cases. There is a real fear that these suspects, if taped, would be unlikely to talk during police interviews, but there is also the risk that taping could compromise intelligence and put lives in danger.
We intend therefore, in England and Wales, to conduct trials of tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. When these trials have been assessed we shall be in a better position to see whether a sensible and effective code of practice can be devised for these cases.
When I laid the draft code before the House on 13th June, I undertook that we would take account of any further representations which might be received by 11th July. As a result, we have made a change to one of the guidance notes, which are not part of the code itself. This is a largely technical matter concerning the procedures to be followed if a tape should break. I announced this amendment to the House on 14th July and an amended guidance note has been placed in the Library.
We are encouraged by the good progress which is being made and by the commitment which is being shown by those involved, not least the police themselves. I commend the code to the House and ask the House to approve it.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Earl Ferrers. )
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships will be indebted to the Minister for the very clear way in which he has explained the provisions of the order. I believe that this is an occasion when the House should congratulate the Government on the progress which at long last is being made to ensure that there is a general tape recording of statements being made by an accused.
It was also good to hear that the date by which all this will be mandatory throughout the kingdom is 1991. In fact it will be some 20 years since this very procedure, or rather experiments in regard to it, were recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee whose report appeared in 1972. However, I repeat that it is a good thing, as many of us in all parts of your Lordships' House have been

447
recommending the mandatory provision of tape recording over a very long period.
I can remember some turgid speeches which I made on the subject and I can remember other speeches much more notable than mine when we were going through the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I also remember that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was dealing with the matter at the time and dealt very sympathetically with the approaches which were made for the expedition of this procedure; we are glad to see him in his seat tonight even though his responsibilities are now somewhat different.
It is right to point out, as did the noble Earl, that the codes of practice will not be mandatory and will not have a statutory form in that way until a further order is placed before the House under Section 60(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I hope that the Minister can give some firm indication of when he hopes to present that order to Parliament.
Having given a general blessing to this order from these Benches, I now concentrate on a few matters where I have some apprehensions. I turn immediately to that part of the code to which the Minister referred as being an exception to the general rule where tape recording was required. I quote from paragraph 3.2.a of the code of practice. A tape recording is not required in respect of:
"an interview with a person arrested under Section 12(I)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 or an interview with a person being questioned in respect of an offence where there arc reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is connected to terrorism or was committed in furtherance of the objectives of an organisation engaged in terrorism."
This sub-paragraph—I am now paraphrasing—applies only where the terrorism is connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or is terrorism of any other description; but the exception to that is where terrorism relates to matters connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland.
When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act comes before this House and another place, questions are always asked about one of the offences in that Act. That offence, which is definitely connected with terrorism, is that where a person has knowledge of matters connected with threatened terrorism, or terrorism generally, and fails to reveal that knowledge a criminal offence has been committed. Often have speeches been made in your Lordships' House, from these and from other Benches, that this offence should not be in the Act. Indeed, various reports have been compiled, as your Lordships will remember, by eminent Members of this House, which advocate that that offence, which is of a dubious nature and where there have been very few prosecutions, should no longer be an offence.
The delicacy of an inquiry as to whether somebody actually knew about an act of terrorism will be obvious to your Lordships. If ever I could think of a case where a recording would be necessary I should have thought it was that one. Yet we are told by the Government —unless I have made an error and if I have I know that the noble Earl will be good enough,
448
in gentle language, to point that out to me—that it will mean that the dubious offence is one of the exceptions to the rule.
Having dealt with the particular, I now deal with the general. One of the main factors which has stopped proceedings in the past from being successful in the few cases—but there have been cases —where the accused has been acquitted and one of the factors which is prevalent after a case has been heard is where a confession has been extorted from the accused in connection with a terrorist offence by means which are grossly improper. I should have thought that without any doubt at all it is absolutely wrong to make an exception not for terrorism generally but for terrorism in Northern Ireland.
First, we are driving another wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in addition to those which already exist in the laws of justice and of criminal procedure. I should have thought that was a grave mistake. Secondly, the Government's reason for doing this is totally wrong. I cannot see the justification for dealing with this matter of terrorism in Northern Ireland and tape recording differently from any other criminal case; nor can I see the justice of saying that this does not apply to terrorism in other parts of the United Kingdom but only in regard to Northern Ireland.
Would not a suspect in regard to terrorism in England, Wales or Scotland be subject, as the Minister mentioned, to the same inhibitions in talking frankly and freely about terrorist acts? Is the IRA, hideous though that organisation is, more terrible than terrorists in the United Kingdom, whether inspired by Libya or any other country which appears to take an interest in causing damage to civilian life and property in this country? Is it not possible to ensure that the summary, which the noble Earl said will be the normal procedure after the tape recording has been made, of necessity leaves out matters which have nothing to do with the probative evidence in regard to a criminal act of terrorism but which have made useful disclosures to the police in areas of terrorism about which they may not otherwise have known?
I repeat, I cannot see any justification whatever, only harm, for that exclusion. Furthermore, I can see that once again there will be allegations about torture, confessions wrongly obtained, and so on, in terrorist cases in Northern Ireland which will lead, as they do, to hatred and contempt for our authorities who do not deserve it. We believe that such cases, if they do occur, are extremely rare and are to be abhorred, but why walk into that accusation when a tape recording would show the mood of the whole interview and exactly what had occurred?
I move to another matter under the code. Paragraphs 3.3 states:
"The custody officer may authorise the interviewing officer not to tape record the interview: (b) where it is clear from the outset that no prosecution will ensue".
The custody officer is not a trained lawyer. One hopes that he is a person of some experience. He does not necessarily have a very high rank in the police force. It may be his genuine view that no prosecution will ensue and as a result of that there will be no tape recording. Are we to understand that, if the custody

449
officer has decided from the outset that no prosecution will ensue, and if the interview throws up matters which a subsequent prosecuting authority believes should lead to a prosecution, such a prosecution will automatically be barred because the accused, even after a tape recording becomes mandatory, was robbed of the opportunity of having the tape recording because it was decided at the outset of the interview that no prosecution would ensue? I repeat my question, is the accused free from prosecution if that decision is made by the custody officer?
My last point relates to the summary. The notes for guidance use these very proper words:
"The record shall, therefore, comprise a balanced account of the Interview including points in mitigation and/or defence made by the suspect".
I appreciate as well as any of your Lordships that it will be open to the defence to hear the whole of the recording and possibly to see a transcript. The defence will decide whether the summary is a fair one. Most of your Lordships may be more fortunate than I in recollecting précis exercises at school and the success or otherwise of your efforts. It was one of the most difficult things to teach. Other matters of grammar and composition were looked upon as being very much easier than the art of being able to make a proper précis.
I merely hope that the status and the capabilities of the officers who will be dealing with this matter—namely, the officers who prepare the précis—will be of the ability required to deal with this very sensitive matter. I ask the Minister whether steps are already being taken in police colleges throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that as from now précis writing is part of the course in which police officers will be trained.
If it is found that time after time the defence complain that they have not been presented with a correct or fair summary and they therefore demand that a transcript of the whole of the recording be produced in court, that is bound to lead to an excess of both expenditure and time.
Having made these qualifications, I repeat that the Government are to be congratulated on getting a move on with this exercise which was suggested in 1971 by the committee to which I referred. Otherwise, from my point of view, I welcome the code that we are asked to approve tonight.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I thank the noble Earl for having explained the contents of this order. Like the noble Lord, I support it, and my support for it is slightly more unreserved. There are a number of issues arising from it that we should discuss this evening. First, I take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt with at the end of his speech. I do not believe that either the present Government or their predecessor can be accused of having moved with undue haste to introduce the tape recording of interviews with suspected persons.
To some extent I believe that the delays were perfectly understandable and, to some degree,
450
inevitable. At first there was undoubtedly scepticism in the police service about it and that was shared by some lawyers. There was doubt about whether tape recording would be of as much benefit to our criminal justice system as the proponents suggested. Well over 10 years ago—indeed, I believe it was 13 years ago—there was a Home Office committee presided over by Mr. Wilfred Hyde which studied the issues involved and produced a most valuable report. Since then there has been a number of significant developments, not least the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. As a result of these developments I believe it is fair to say that the suspicion that existed that tapes could easily be tampered with—a belief which was inevitable following upon some of the disclosures in the Watergate case—has been put at rest.
It is right to say that the pilot projects to which the noble Earl referred undoubtedly went well. As a result of these developments a number of sceptics became enthusiasts for taping. I have little doubt that the introduction of tape recording throughout England and Wales will prove to be of immense benefit to our criminal justice system. It should certainly shorten many trials, guarantee high standards of conduct by police officers involved in interviewing suspects and lessen the likelihood of dishonest defendants being able to persuade juries that the statement they made to the police was either invented by the police or made as the result of harassment.
That being so, how can the Government justify delaying the introduction of tape recording throughout England and Wales until 1991? If he will forgive me for saying so, the noble Earl passed over that matter rather speedily in his speech this evening. I believe that some explanation is called for. It seems very surprising that we have to wait up to five years before we can be sure that taping will be extended to every area of the United Kingdom. I am well aware that in this period (a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon) a major training exercise will be involved in the police service. However, that cannot constitute a reason for a delay for five years.
I fear that the explanation is likely to be the second reason given by the noble Earl in his speech; that is, that the Government are not prepared to make the resources available in order to introduce the scheme earlier. I believe that is a great misfortune. It will impose an entirely unjustifiable burden on our courts, which as we all know are under the heaviest pressure at the moment.
I very much hope that, as a result of the criticisms made in another place last night and in this House this evening, the Government will think again about this. Certainly there is no great body of support in the police service for a delay of this character; and of that I can assure the noble Earl. I am quite sure that he will confirm that that is so.
I would now like to ask the noble Earl a question of which I gave him a few minutes' notice; that is, whether the Government are now preparing to move towards the next step, which is video-recorded interviews. As the noble Earl will be aware, these are now commonplace in many areas of the United States. A number of heads of American police

451
departments have told me that they represent a major improvement on tape-recorded interviews. Quite apart from any other consideration, it gives the opportunity of dealing with any suggestion that there has been some subtle form of harassment during the interview, because one is able clearly to study the features of those concerned.
I am told that the introduction of video-recorded interviews in the United States has led to a significant increase in the number of guilty pleas in the courts, and thus to a reduction of the pressure on their court system. Again, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether the Home Office is studying this at the moment, and whether it will be indicating its general attitude towards it.
Lastly, I should like to come to the question—which is a difficult one—dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That is the issue raised in paragraph 3.2 of the code: the exclusion for the present of interviews with people arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I can understand the concern of entirely reasonable people that cases relating to Northern Ireland are to be excluded in this fashion.
However, I must make it clear that on the basis of my own experience I believe that the Government are right to move with considerable caution.
If a suspected terrorist sees that his interview is being tape recorded, he may become so fearful that the content of the tape will fall into the hands of his colleagues that he may decline to give any further information. On many occasions material of this kind is vital. It can give police information about the IRA that will save lives, and in other cases it will pinpoint other suspects and provide extremely important criminal intelligence information.
If tape recordings were to be required in all such cases, there is a risk that some of that information could end up by being leaked to the IRA. I do not consider that it is right for us to take such a risk, and accordingly I consider that for the moment it is right to exclude Northern Ireland cases from the provisions of the order.
Having made those various points, I think I have said enough to indicate our wholehearted support for the general approach set out in the order we are debating this evening. It represents, as I have indicated, a major improvement in our system of criminal justice for the defendant and the police alike. Our major concern is that the Government will speed up the introduction of this system throughout the country well before 1991. I hope that the noble Earl will deal directly with this point when he replies to the debate.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks that both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have made. This is quite an innovation. The whole principle of tape recording is new. It covers sensitive ground, and I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is possibly a little hesitant in his
452
welcome, though he said that he welcomed it on the whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why we are slow in doing this. I think the basic answer is that we want to proceed carefully and cautiously. As I explained, we set up a trial, and we wanted to see how it worked out. The trials went on for a period of about two years. Now that we think we have got it right, it is proposed to introduce it. When the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that this has taken a great deal of time, he will remember that some £9 million is being spent on it.
It is a considerable physical upheaval in various police stations. It is not all that easy to do that kind of thing overnight. If one thinks of the Metropolitan Police area alone, an enormous number of stations will have to be modified and altered. Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would like to see this done quicker—I can understand his impatience, if I may use that word without any discourtesy—I think it would be unreasonable to expect that we would be able to do it immediately.
We propose to make orders—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked specifically about this—under Section 60(1)(b) when the tape recording is operating satisfactorily on a voluntary basis throughout a force area. We are likely to make orders in respect of a number of forces at a time. The first of these orders is likely to be laid during the next Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, questioned the assumption of the code of interviews with terrorist suspects. He took the view that these recorded interviews should be done before terrorist suspects, and he thought it was wrong for those to be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to that too. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put his finger on the point. If a suspect believes that there is the slightest chance of a tape falling into the wrong hands, he will be loath to speak. There is a real fear that the suspects would be unlikely to talk during these interviews, and there is a real fear that the taping could compromise intelligence and put lives in danger.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes a different view. I hope he will respect our view and the fact that if we feel lives and intelligence are likely to be put at risk we are right, so far, not to include those sorts of interviews for those sorts of people. We shall of course consider what to do as more knowledge and experience become available, but at the moment we feel that, for those reasons of acute sensitivity that the noble Lord will understand, it would be better not to use this system for terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked specifically about the exemption under paragraph 3.2 of the code. This applies to an interview with a person being questioned in respect of an offence where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is connected with terrorism. This could include an offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which deals with withholding information about acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord will understand the reasons we take the view that we have.

453
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred back to his schooldays. That was a touching recollection with which I had much sympathy, because I found the art of making a precis extremely difficult as well. I can assure the noble Lord that the police are fully seized of the need for training in the preparation of the written records of interviews. Most training will be given in police forces, and force training itself will be assisted by the orders produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The noble Lord is correct that if the precis is done wrong, then of course the whole validity of the exercise gets endangered. However, great trouble will be taken to ensure that so far as possible all precis are reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked what would happen if a person had not been interviewed using a tape and it was then decided to prosecute. In other words, what happens if there is no taping? Does that mean no prosecution? I do not think that this is likely to occur very often, but in the unlikely event that it is decided to prosecute a person, we believe that the proper course would be to carry out a further interview, which would be fully recorded.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred specifically to the next step forward, which would be the video recording of interviews. If this were to take place, police forces would have to prepare special interview rooms. There are no plans at the moment to introduce video recordings in evidence. The Government are considering the possibility of introducing video recordings of evidence given by children in sex abuse cases. A working party has been set up under the chairmanship of Judge Pigot to consider the implications of that. The use of video recordings in all cases would be exceedingly expensive. At the moment it is not under consideration.
I am grateful for the welcome that the two noble Lords have given to this order. I think that it is an important step forward, and one which we will watch with interest to see how it proceeds. I am grateful for the encouragement that we have been given. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 74.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 56, line 13, at end insert—
("() Where an order is made under this section, —

(a) payments made by a local authority as mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be prescribed expenditure for the purposes of Part VII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (capital expenditure of local authorities); and

(b) unless the order otherwise provides, payments made to a local authority as mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be regarded for the purposes of that Part as sums received by the authority in respect of a disposal falling within section 75(2) of that Act.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 122. We have made clear our intention that transfers to HATs should take place at tenanted market value. Clause 75 provides for the Secretary of
454
State to consult the local authority about the terms of the proposed transfer before he makes a transfer order.
The government Amendment No. 122 is simply designed to bring transfers to HATs within the normal workings of the capital control system and, in particular, to ensure that moneys received by local authorities will be capital receipts and give rise to spending power. Such receipts will be treated in exactly the same way as housing receipts are now. For the future, my right honourable friend has recently issued a consultation paper about capital expenditure and finance which, among other things, makes proposals for the use of capital receipts from 1990/91 onwards. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has fairly and clearly described what happens when there is a positive value placed on the property. He has said that it will be treated as a capital receipt, subject to any restrictions on the use of such receipts.
However, is it not the case that there could be a negative valuation placed on the property as a result of which the local authority would be required to pay a dowry? In that case, what will be the position about local authority expenditure? This is going to be an additional cost to the local authority. The levels of permissible expenditure for the next financial year are usually set in November of each year. Therefore, how is the Department of the Environment to assess the financial impact of negative valuations on individual authorities? Is any sum earmarked in the public expenditure Estimates and the public expenditure White Paper for this purpose? If it is to be a purely additional item, so be it; but if it is not to be an additional item, what is to be deducted from the budget of the Department of the Environment in order to pay this additional amount?
The Earl of Caithness: Clearly, the noble Lord has raised an important issue. As he knows, this is a very new policy area for me and I should like to look at it. As the noble Lord also knows, the amount that local authorities will be given will be considered. We do not know where the HATs are going to be or indeed their value. It is possible in some cases that there might be a deficit value. That is something that I should like to look at in a little more detail. Then I shall write to the noble Lord about this matter. However, we hope that they will be positive values.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause No. 79 [Disposal of land by housing action trusts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 59, line 10, leave out ("either under this section or").
The noble Lord said: This can best be described as a probing amendment because there seems to be some conflict of evidence between Ministerial statement and the way in which the Bill is expressed. The Secretary of State in another place on 27th June said:
"In all cases the basis for approval will be the same as our tenants' choice proposals".
I am of course talking of approval for disposal of HAT property to a landlord on the conclusion of the HAT's work.
Under Clause 93 of the Bill there is a very clear commitment by the Government, which we welcome, that when the tenants' choice procedures take place, the prospective landlord will have to abide by rules laid down by the Housing Corporation. Clause 93 is very precise about that condition. Indeed, I understand that the Housing Corporation is already drawing up a guidance on housing management practice for registered housing associations which could well be used for assessing whether an applicant landlord is an appropriate landlord. The draft guidelines include questions of meeting the housing demand, allocating tenancies, the terms of tenancies, the principles of determining rents and charges, maintenance and repair, tenant relations, race relations, etc.
We welcome the fact that the Housing Corporation appears to be taking very seriously the problem of how to judge whether an applicant is an appropriate landlord for public sector housing.
Unfortunately, Clause 79 is not anything like as precise as Clause 93. Although the Secretary of State has said in the statement that I have just quoted that he wants the conditions to be the same as in the tenants' choice proposals, that does not appear to be reflected in the Bill. For that reason we are suggesting that the disposal should be to a person approved under Clause 93 rather than under this clause, which is less precise. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Clause 93 conditions take priority and that the rather vaguer wording in Clause 79 is a hangover from an earlier regime before the Secretary of State made his commitments to a stricter regime. If the noble Earl can give that assurance, I shall be delighted to withdraw the amendment, unless the amendment is, in its own words, acceptable.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I was somewhat confused when I first saw this amendment, so I spent some time with officials this morning trying to work out exactly what the the noble Lord was driving at. However, I think I can say to him that we have got it right. We want to be able to involve as post-HAT landlords any landlord who is deemed to meet the Housing Corporation's approval criteria which will carry with it the tenants' guarantees we have already discussed whether or not they have previously been involved as tenants' choice landlords. The clause therefore allows the corporation also to approve landlords specifically for the purpose of being post-HAT landlords.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will agree with me that the Housing
456
Corporation should be able to approve any landlords to take on property from HATs who can satisfy them and not restrict themselves to those already involved with Part IV of the Bill. As I understand it, this clause ensures not only that those landlords who have come forward under Part IV of the Bill are vetted, but also that if another landlord, who is not a tenants' choice landlord, comes forward the Housing Corporation has to vet that landlord in exactly the same way. That is the point of the clause. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can see that the Minister and I have the same aim, but I am not convinced that the Bill achieves it. Will he confirm, or otherwise, that the conditions laid down in Clause 93 are stricter than those laid down in Clause 79? They are certainly different. There is no doubt about that, because the flexibility given to the corporation and the Secretary of State in Clause 79 is much greater. In other words, the assurances which are given in Clause 93 are more satisfactory to us. Will he confirm that the more secure regime in Clause 93 is the dominant one? If he does, then we can think about it between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that we are seeking to achieve the same object. As I understand it, that is how one interprets the Bill. Obviously I should like to look at the legal point raised by the noble Lord between now and another stage but, nevertheless, I think we are on common ground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the basis that it is not the Government's intention to introduce a new and less rigid approval procedure for the disposal of securely tenanted HAT households—that is what I am really seeking to ensure—I think it is proper that I should withdraw the amendment. Perhaps the Minister and I can have a word about it before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 60, line 11, at end insert:
("(aa) an approval under this section shall not be given except to a person making an application accompanied by such fee as the Corporation, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may specify; and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125. These amendments are essentially technical and bring Clause 79 in line with Clause 93. Since it is right that landlords approved for the purposes of Part III should be subject to the same approval criteria as for tenants' choice, I invite the Committee to accept the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are talking here about the possibility in the end of landlords being "struck off' the register, are we not? Will the list of landlords who have been struck off in that way be available? Further, will the reasons for such action be available, so that existing tenants unable to get away from those landlords can at least be informed of what has gone wrong and the extent to which the landlords

457
were in error or guilty of wrongdoing which led to their being struck off?
Lord Hesketh: I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord in answer to that question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry; that is not satisfactory. It is clear from the wording of the amendment that that is what will happen. We shall let the amendment go through but I cannot say that I am satisfied with the degree of briefing which has been given to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125.
Page 60, line 20, at end insert ("and different fees may be specified under paragraph (aa) above for different descriptions of cases.").
Page 60, line 20, at end insert—
("() The Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales shall each maintain a register of persons for the time being approved by it under this section; and each register so maintained shall be open to inspection at the head office of the Corporation by which it is maintained at all reasonable times.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 60, line 20, at end insert—
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (9)(a) above, an approval under this section may be conditional upon the person or persons concerned entering into an undertaking that the use of any dwelling-house, excluded from the provisions of Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (Right to Buy), continue to be commensurate with the purpose for which they were provided by the local authority.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment involves a very important principle and one which was brought very forcibly to our attention this morning by the tenants in the housing action trust areas who came to see us in this place. The point they made most forcibly to us is that they want the right, when the housing action trust has run its course and has made the improvements which everyone desires, to go back to the local authority as local authority tenants. Therefore the first part of the amendment provides that if,
"a secure tenant in receipt of a notice under subsection (4)"
tells the housing action trust that he wishes the local authority to acquire the house, then that shall take place and he will go back to the local authority. I imagine that the Minister and the Government will have no particular difficulty with that. Certainly, one of the options which they have always envisaged for properties under housing action trusts is that they should go back to the control of the local authority afterwards. Of course they envisage other options, but that one has not been ruled out.
The problem arises when the local authority, having disposed of the property to the HAT and its value presumably having increased because there is after all £125 million available for the housing action trust programme, is offered the property back because the tenant so wishes. How will the local authority be able to pay for it? What we wish to secure by the second part of the amendment is that the Secretary of State shall adjust the capital expenditure
458
allocation of the local authority under Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by a sum equal to the amount for which the house is purchased by the authority from the HAT.
I give notice to the Government that this will be a most important element when they seek to persuade—by ballot, as the Committee has decided—housing action trust area tenants to agree to, and co-operate with, the housing action trust. If they feel that they do not have the power to go back to the local authority as landlords, and there is any risk that the local authority may not be able to afford to take them back at the price charged by the housing action trust, then the possibility of co-operation by the tenants in the housing action trust will be that much reduced and the possibility of a "no" vote in a ballot will be that much greater.
It is a matter upon which concern was expressed to us most forcibly by the tenants whom we met. I believe that as the Secretary of State continues his meetings with tenants in the HAT areas, he will find—and no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be present at those meetings in his new capacity as housing Minister—that this is what he will be told. They will want to come back, and they will want to be assured that the local authority can take them back.
I am not certain that the wording of these amendments actually achieves what we want to do; there may be problems about that. However, I have no doubt whatever that this is a most important issue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am slightly confused. I thought that Amendment No. 125A had already been spoken to when Amendment No. 121B was dealt with, and that it had already been answered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was speaking to Amendment No. 125B.
The Earl of Caithness: That is the amendment that I thought the noble Lord was speaking to; but the Deputy Chairman of Committees called Amendment No. 125A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I did indeed call Amendment No. 125A. I realise of course that it is linked to Amendment No. 121B, but that is nothing to do with me. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wishes to make another speech on Amendment No. 125B he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, at the moment we are dealing with Amendment No. 125A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise to the Committee and to the Deputy Chairman. I did not realise that I should have said "not moved" to Amendment No. 125A. My speech related to Amendment No. 125B. I hope that, in the relatively clublike atmosphere in which the Committee is being conducted at this hour of the night, it will be possible for me to withdraw Amendment No. 125A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Provisions applicable to disposals of dwelling-houses subject to secure tenancies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125B:
Page 64, line 22, at end insert—
("() If, in making representations under this section, a secure tenant in receipt of a notice under subsection (4) above informs a housing action trust that he wishes the local authority to acquire the house, the housing action trust shall dispose of the house to the local authority, where the Secretary of State gives his consent to any other disposal from the trust to any other person.
() Where a disposal is made to a local authority under this section. the Secretary of State shall increase the amount of expenditure prescribed under Part VIII (Capital Expenditure of Local Authorities Etc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the said authority by an amount equal to the sum for which the house was purchased by the said authority from the housing action trust.").
The noble Lord said: I have, in error, already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: We have already made it clear that we want to see HATs offering tenants a wide range of options and have strengthened the provisions for consultation with them on disposals. When the housing action trust has finished its improvment work it will offer its tenants a new landlord. This could be a housing association, a tenants' co-operative or a private landlord. If they wish, and the council agrees, the council may again become their landlord. Apart from transfers back to local authorities, HATs will be able to transfer secure tenants and their properties only to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. All the options will be fully discussed with tenants before any decisions are made.
I find it difficult to agree that to go beyond this, to give tenants an absolute right to return to the council, is reasonable. It cannot be right to compel a local authority, many years ahead of a potential HAT disposal, to take back any tenant who asks. The authority may by then have a different perception of its housing responsibilities. However, it is open to local authorities to consider their policy on this now.
Neither can I agree that the local authority's prescribed expenditure should be increased. It will have gained a receipt from a HAT at the time of the transfer to the HAT which it will have been able to spend over time, subject to the prescribed proportion rules. Additionally, local authorities will be able to discuss their need for expenditure in the normal way during the discussion which takes place annually with the department on housing investment programme bids.
I should like to comment further on the noble Lord's argument on a firm commitment. He said that such a commitment cannot be made by authorities in the absence of guarantees that their prescribed expenditure will be automaticaly adjusted to reflect the cost of acquiring stock from a HAT. I should like to make four points on this. First, local authorities will be able to discuss their need for expenditure in the normal way. Secondly, the authorities may have
460
already received that capital receipt, which will add to their spending power over time.
I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to take that point into account. He will be aware that there is no automatic correlation between the cost of repair and improvement work and the value of properties. We cannot foresee the impact that the work of HATs will have on the value of stock they acquire from local authorities. We cannot even consider what the prices of the properties might be. I became a junior surveyor in the middle of the housing boom of the early 1970s. Within a year prices were falling and it was difficult to assess prices either going up or coming down. Indeed it was difficult as a valuer to assess them when they were on the level.
Finally, HATs will not be waiting until they are dissolved to dispose of the property. They will be doing so throughout their lifetime as improvement work is completed and as sensible disposal options can be considered. When local authorities consider whether they wish to buy back property from HATs they are likely to be doing so against the background of rather smaller packages than the overall quantity of the stock originally transferred. The views of the tenants might well have changed in the interim. We shall offer them a choice. If the local authority is willing, arrangements can be made at the time.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may take that last point first. The Minister certainly convinced me that the drafting of my amendment is defective in that it says that the full cost to the authority of buying a property should be added to the expenditure prescribed under Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. He quite rightly pointed out that the local authority will already have had a capital receipt from the disposal of the property to the housing action trust. Therefore I feel that I should withdraw the amendment in order to find a way to reflect the net cost to a local authority rather than the gross cost.
I shall certainly withdraw the amendment on that basis. However, I must warn the Minister that the Government will make life extraordinarily difficult for themselves if they deny the right for a HAT area tenant to return to a local authority. As I know from my experience this morning, tenants feel very strongly on this point. The Minister will learn about this when he comes to meet the tenants and when the ballot procedure which has been agreed this afternoon has been implemented. He will find great difficulty in persuading tenants of the virtues of HATs unless he can give the kind of assurance which I was seeking in the amendment. I shall return to the matter in a different form at a later stage. However, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, wihdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 125C:
Page 64, line 23, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("() For the purposes of section 106A and Schedule 3A of the Housing Act 1985 a housing action trust shall be considered to be a local authority").
The noble Lord said: I hope to make the right speech to the right amendment. I want the Minister to realise that tenants will feel like shuttlecocks. Regardless of the fact that they are happy living where they are and are content with their present landlord they may find themselves in HATs where for a period they will be subject to the management and to the direction and control of what will be for them an alien body. When the HAT has completed its work and carried out its remit and, we hope, has brightened the environs of the properties, who will become the new landlords of the enlarged, enriched and enlivened HAT area?
This amendment seeks to allow tenants of a HAT to veto disposals to landlords they do not want if a majority of the tenants express such opposition. The amendment does this in quite an ingenous way. The Minister's advisers will no doubt have guided him on the thinking behind the amendment. The deletion of Section 5(8) of the Housing Act 1985 would apply to HATs and therefore disposals would fall under its provisions. Section 105 does not provide for a right of veto. However, the Housing and Planning Act 1986 added a new Section 106A which includes the right of veto, whereby the Secretary of State is prohibited from giving consent to the disposal of property if it appears to him that the majority of tenants are opposed to it. Section 106A replaces the provisions of Section 105 in relation to consultation on disposals. As Section 106A and the accompanying Schedule 3A only apply to local authorities, the latter part of this amendment defines HATs as local authorities.
We understand that a comparable amendment was moved and debated in another place. That gave guidance not only to myself but to the Minister who is advised by a group of advisers here similar to those in another place. While there was some give on the issue of consultation, there was very little give on the meat of the amendment which is the right to veto. The Minister was not prepared to give any concession at all. His argument was that it would give the HAT an indefinite lifespan, with tenants throwing out proposals from approved landlord after approved landlord. We need to examine that argument a little more closely.
Although it is early days in the Minister's responsibilities, from his general background he will be well aware that in the original document on HATs the following statement appears:
"The HAT as a landlord of the properties it takes over from the local authority will also be subject to the same duties as authorities to consult its tenants about management and maintenance issues".
Perhaps the most important issue of management on 'which consultation is necessary is a change of management. Secure tenants have rights under the Housing Act 1985 not only to consultation but to an effective right of veto if a majority are opposed to a disposal to a particular new landlord. If the pledge in the consultation document is to be honoured, it would follow that the tenants of HATs should have the same rights. We take the view that this is a litmus paper in the test of the Government's true intentions regarding the whole raison d'être for the HAT scenario.
The Government have told us that their prime concern is nothing other than to improve the
462
environment, to improve the quality of housing, and to improve the quality of life of the people who live in the estates. The Government are doing this through the vehicles and mechanism of HATs. We are not arguing about HATs; we are arguing about the rights of tenants of a local authority who for a period of time are under the sovereignty of a HAT and what happens to them at the end of the HAT period.
If there is anything more than rhetoric in the Government's phrase "tenants' choice", we are asking, what is wrong with the tenants of properties under a HAT having tenants' choice? If a HAT cannot find a suitable landlord when it comes to the end of its life, why should it not continue until it finds one? We have no particular concept; we do not very much like the concept of a HAT, but we shall certainly not say that there is nothing worse than a HAT from the point of view of looking after the interests of tenants. We have a very long short list of dubious characters and dubious arrangements under private landlordism which would be infinitely more detrimental to the interests of tenants than what we understand is the Government's intention in respect of HATs. We are saying that the unpalatable aspects of HATs could be made a little more palatable if HAT tenants were given the same rights as other tenants. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: HATs will be short-life bodies charged with carrying out a programme of improvement and repair. Once they have completed this work they will be wound up. It is in the tenants' own long-term interests that HATs be wound up as soon as their job is done. It therefore cannot be right to give tenants a right to frustrate this objective by being able to veto all disposal options put before them.
However, as Members of the Committee know, we consider that tenants are central to the policy. We have therefore already amended the Bill to strengthen the consultation arrangements along the lines of Section 106A and Schedule 3A of the Housing Act 1985 so that there is full consultation with tenants about options for disposal. They will be given the option of return to the local authority if the local authority is willing. For those secure tenants not returning to the local authority, HATs will only be able to dispose of their property to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. These might be housing associations, tenants' co-operatives or private sector landlords. In all cases, this will mean transfers can only take place to responsible, financially stable landlords whose interest lies in maintaining stock acquired from HATs for letting at rents—
I hope that Members of the Committee will accept the Government's commitment, already reflected in Clause 83, to provide tenants with genuine consultation and real choice about their futures. I re-emphasise the amendments which have already been made to this clause in another place.
The more this debate progresses about HATs, the more interesting it is to see the attitudes of noble Lords opposite towards them. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, "Well, we have these

463
beastly, horrible HATs coming in where all the tenants are happy". Quite clearly, after my short experience, but having talked to my honourable friend the former Minister for Housing and Planning. I believe that the tenants are not happy in some of these situations. The houses are appalling; they have been so badly maintained; so unimproved. The crime, the vandalism and graffiti are there for all to see. The old ladies do not even dare to go out the moment the sun starts to set. These are not happy people.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, went on to say, "Their lives will be enriched and enlivened. Perhaps there is a bit of good in the FIAT there". Then he said, "Well, we like the HATs so much as landlords that tenants can reject all alternatives". It is not a question of the HAT finding an alternative suitable landlord; those landlords will be approved by the Housing Corporation. The noble Lord said, "We are not quite sure about the Housing Corporation being allowed to approve them". I really think that the noble Lord is beginning to like HATs quite a lot after all.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the HAT fits, the noble Lord can wear it! I cannot recall either the spirit or the words which the Minister has put into my mouth. I start from the premise that we want a democratic right for people who live in council accommodation to have a meaningful say as to who their landlord should be. We are not saying that everyone should, in an anarchistic way, be able to frustrate the will of the Government, a HAT, the council or a majority. We are saying that a majority of tenants might find themselves in this situation—I was careful not to say "unfortunate situation".
We have had other arguments about the concept of a HAT. When the Minister gives illustrations of some areas that have been designated as HATs, he may well be right. My noble friends and I listened to the words from the horse's mouth this morning—from the tenants who came from estates. My noble friend Lord McIntosh in a very restrained way described the estate in Tower Hamlets on the edge of the City. The quality which shone through to me was the pride of those tenants in their community. They were proud of it. The Minister and I may very well find that, in comparison with the houses in which he and I live, these were not salubrious surroundings. They may not have the same facilities as we have, but the lady who spoke, and others around her, live in a community and they are suspicious and fearful. Of course they complain that what they have could be improved, but it is their own. They have something which even the Minister and I may not have in the communities in which we live. They have a pride in the continuity of their families and that of their neighbours.
I am not saying that housing action trusts will not be managed efficiently or fairly. I am saying that they will not be managed democratically. That is our big argument. If the Minister has any faith in the value and the merit of what he is doing, we fail to see why he is not prepared to test it. The Minister is entitled to believe that local councils are not the best agents to improve properties which need to be improved.
464
But the Minister is going down a very dangerous road in that belief. He is in effect saying to a local authority that it has an area in which, by all the measuring rods, £5 million of public money properly spent will improve the lives of the 200 to 300 people who live there.
He is also saying that the Government believe that local authorities are bad managers of money. He is saying that the Government believe there is a better way of improving properties and that that will be achieved by appointing an unelected group of place men and place women. Those people will be appointed by the Secretary of State for no other reason than their skill in managing houses.
But those people cannot relate to the people on whose behalf they are managing the houses. The Government have revealed that there are other areas of public life where they believe that the man or the woman in Marsham Street knows best. The Bill is yet another erosion of the powers of local authorities to look after local people. The Minister knows well that local authorities have been starved of the proper resources with which to do that.
The reply of the Minister has been most unsatisfactory but very revealing. It has shown that he cannot understand what the tenants want. They want what the Minister says they have—tenants' choice. That is a sham and the Minister should know it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 86 [Agency agreements]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 125D:
Page 65, line 25, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not give his approval under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that the housing action trust has complied with the provisions of section 27A of the Housing Act 1985.".
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It is interesting to reflect for a few moments on the discussion that took place on the previous amendment between my noble friend Lord Graham and the Minister. We have been told quite clearly that the money on the table at this time to finance the exercise of housing action trusts is £125 million.
I do not know whether that sum represents a down payment or the total financing of the system. I do not have all the figures; perhaps the Minister's officials have them. However, I know that £125 million is less than the sum that was withheld from three or four major local authorities when they put in bids for their housing investment programmes. I can say off the top of my head that such cities as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham asked for sums over £100 million and received about half that amount, if that. If one considers that particular yardstick, one can see that the sum being put on the

465
table now is less than the sum that was withheld from three or four large authorities. They had asked for that money to carry out the job that the housing action trusts are supposed to carry out.
Reports submitted two or three years ago concerning the financial resources required for dealing with council housing mentioned sums such as £18 billion. That sum was not submitted by a political body but by one of the national research institutes. The figure, which was the first to be quoted, became a conservative estimate. Every figure submitted since has shown a tremendous increase on that original figure. So, as regards the present figure, we are talking about confetti money. Confetti money is going to be used to deal with probably the most difficult and tendentious social problem that exists today— the question of housing at the bottom end of the scale.
As regards the amendment, Clause 86 of the Bill allows a housing action trust, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to enter into agency agreements with another person or body for the discharging of any of its functions, including its housing function.
As it stands, Clause 86 appears to allow housing action trusts to escape the responsibilities which they would otherwise have under Section 27A of the Housing Act to consult tenants before entering into such an agreement and not to proceed if the majority are opposed to it. The amendment seeks to ensure that Section 27A applies in this case. Section 27A of the 1985 Act deals with a case where the local authority proposes to enter into a management agreement with another person or body over the management of its housing. The tenants themselves must be consulted and, if a majority of tenants say they do not agree with the proposal, the Secretary of State shall not give his approval to it. In effect, the tenants retain the right of veto.
The amendment requires housing action trusts to comply with Section 27A of the Housing Act. In committee in another place the late Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Marion Roe—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful for that correction, although politically what I said may be the case. I am afraid that I have lost my place. It is late in the Session and I hope that the Committee will sympathise with my predicament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We all have to row together!
Lord Dean of Beswick: Yes, we may do that. Mrs. Roe agreed that Section 27A should apply and agreed to consider how best to apply it. However, no amendment was brought forward on Report in another place. It is hoped that the Government will accept this amendment.
Section 27A was inserted into the 1985 Act by the Government in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. At that stage, it was supported by the Opposition because it gave additional rights to council tenants.
466
Those rights would apply whatever the proposal from the local authority, whether to delegate the management of an estate to a tenant management co-operative or whether to pass the management to a private company. It is absolutely right that tenants should have a veto, because the housing management matters which can be delegated to someone else include rent collection, caretaking, general management and maintenance, small repairs, allocations and lettings policy, policy on rent arrears, harassment and other matters, In other words, they include all the things which can dramatically affect the quality of life of the tenants concerned.
There is no reason why housing action trust tenants should lose that protection. We have every hope that the amendment will meet with the Government's approval. In Committee in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
"The Secretary of State will, of course, want HATs to consult their tenants about any arrangements that will amount to management agreements. I sympathise with the purpose of Amendment No. 580. I agree with the honourable Member for Makerfield that Section 27A of the Housing Act 1985 or its equivalent should apply to HATs. There should be a provision requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that tenants have been consulted on proposals for management agreements, and to withhold approval when a majority of the tenants oppose the proposals. I assure the honourable gentleman that we shall consider how best to apply the requirement of Section 27A to HATs in the Bill. In the light of that assurance, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 23/2/88; col. 1064.]
That was an assurance which was given in another place.
There may be some reason why the Government have not come forward with such an amendment. It may be that they have discovered that Clause 86 of this Bill does not override Section 27A after all and that tenants are protected. If that is the case, we shall be satisfied. However, our reading of the Bill is that they are not. That seems to be the interpretation which was put on the Bill by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place in February. That will not restrict a housing action trust from entering into agency agreements which are not matters of housing management. It would be free to enter into agreements on other issues.
We hope that the Government will support the amendment. Certainly it would reassure the tenants in the six authorities who seem likely to have their estates designated. Those tenants are recovering from the announcement and are beginning to look at the details of the Bill. Some of the tenants' representatives are alarmed by the wording of Clause 86. They believe that the power to privatise the management of their estates is contained in the Bill. That may not be the Government's intention and that is why it is important for them to make that clear to the tenants by accepting the amendment.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Government where tenants who have a beef against their local authority normally go. If they are not satisfied or if they have problems with a local authority tenancy, it is the case—as I know as an ex-chairman of housing and as my colleagues as former local government men will know—that they go to the surgeries of local councillors, which are often held on a weekly basis. In my term as a councillor in Manchester and as a

467
Member of Parliament representing a traditional working class area in Leeds, I believe that at least 80 per cent. of the people who came to see me had housing problems. The vast majority of those people were concerned about local authority housing. That is a point which I have not heard mentioned in our debate.
If tenants are not satisfied with the so-called imago which the Secretary of State will produce, who will they complain to? They cannot go to their local elected councillor. He has no authority in the matter. He can write to the housing action trust. It will not need to reply because he has no statutory rights in the matter. Some weeks ago I raised a question in your Lordships' House about an area of public concern. In Manchester certain people were appointed to positions who were accountable only to the Secretary of State, who is enshrined as a sort of god of local government. No one can take the tablets up the mountain to see him. That is a dangerous trend. As I see it, the amendment attempts to retain the rights which local authority tenants have under existing legislation. I do not see why those arrangements cannot be transposed into any new arrangements in which local authorities are asked to take part. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: When the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, spoke about the finance given to local authorites, he omitted to say that for the third year running gross capital resources made available to local authorities have been increased. This year, the figure stands at over £3 billion. Within that amount, £140 million is being provided for housing action estates—almost double last year's figure. We are making an extra £125 million available for HATs over the next three years. I believe that that is further evidence of our desire to provide resources to deal with run-down local authority housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he can deal with what I have said. To my knowledge, over the past four or five years the bids that local authorities have put in for local authority housing stock have been less than 50 per cent. net in the broadest sense. I believe that we are also entitled to ask whether the £125 million will have any effect on the global amount of housing investment that is made available within the same financial years. Alternatively, will it come from the housing investment programme itself? Is it an addition?
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot answer the noble Lord as regards bids and what was received in the past few years. I have not been able to look at those papers yet. Doubtless they will be passed to me while the noble Lord is sunning himself in some foreign emerald isle. I hope that he will spare a thought for those of us at the DoE who are beavering away.
For the third year running, gross capital receipts have gone up. The total amount this year is over £3 billion. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to withhold approval from any housing management agreement proposed by a HAT
468
unless he is satisfied that it has complied with the provisions of Section 27A of the Housing Act 1985. As the noble Lord has said, this requires detailed consultation by a local housing authority with tenants about any proposal to enter into a housing management agreement; and the Secretary of State cannot approve such an agreement if a majority of the tenants veto the proposals.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that we have considered the matter carefully. I am very sympathetic to the objective behind Section 27A. We have repeatedly said that HATs will be expected to consult tenants fully about their proposals. I have referred in previous discussion to the extensive requirements built into Part III of the Bill and in the public undertakings given by ministers about aspects of HAT policy to achieve the objectives of consultation. Therefore, it is our firm intention to require HATs to carry out full consultation with the tenants on housing management agreements. We propose to achieve this through the Secretary of State's management guidance to HATs, which will be published. We would back this up, if necessary, by a direction under the Secretary of State's general direction-making power in Clause 72. And when a HAT comes to the Secretary of State for approval to its proposed housing management agreement, I undertake that he would take tenants' views into account before giving approval to the proposal.
I am afraid I cannot agree, however, that the provision in Section 27A, requiring the Secretary of State not to give his approval in the face of a tenant veto, should be applied to HATs. The reason for this is because we are concerned about deliberate obstruction tactics. Once HATs are established, if Parliament agrees the necessary orders, they will want to proceed with their work in the most efficient and effective manner in order to bring tenants the benefits from the extra resources that the Government are making available.
However we know from the many misleading stories already circulating about HATs that there are those who oppose them on principle. I am sure that we should all be very sad if HATs were prevented from achieving their objectives as a result of deliberate obstruction. Those opposed to HATs in the first place would simply argue that their case had been proven; and those tenants who were caught in the middle would not get the benefits.
It is therefore with great regret that I must resist this amendment. However, I repeat my undertaking that HATs will be required to carry out full tenant consultation on housing management agreements and the Secretary of State will take tenants' views into account before giving approval.
Perhaps I may just add two points. First, HATs, unlike local authorities, will be in existence for a short period: they will be short-lived. Their role is to move into a run-down, badly managed area, refurbish it, improve it and give greater choice and better facilities to the tenants and then to find another landlord. Therefore, perhaps some of the powers of local authorities are not appropriate to HATs.
The second point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. He asked who a tenant within

469
a HAT could go to. The situation is different from the case which he brought to the attention of the Committee, in that there will be, as I have said and as I shall repeat, tenants' representation on HATs and there will be tenants' advisory fora to provide a means of channelling local people's views to HATs beyond representation on the boards. As I have said, we shall want full consultation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I welcome the first part of the Minister's reply and his sympathy towards the objectives of the amendment. His sympathy ends there. The Minister referred to the fact that the Secretary of State will do this and that, will issue edicts and will provide guidelines. When I first arrived in another place I was taught that unless a provision is enshrined in an Act it is subject to the whim of the Secretary of State. A future Secretary of State may take a much harsher view than our present very tenderly disposed Secretary of State for the Environment, who seems to go out of his way to consider everyone's views. Depending on the whim of the present Prime Minister, he may not be Secretary of State at the end of this year and we may get a replacement who is cast in a harsher mould. I take the suggestion with a pinch of salt.
Therefore, for the Minister to say to the Committee that the Secretary of State will do (a), (b), (c) and (d) is not worth the candle; it does not mean anything unless it is the law of the land. Someone might go to court and challenge actions of the Secretary of State taken on the basis of what has been said in this Chamber and at the Dispatch Box in another place: those actions would have no bearing in law. In fact Secretaries of State have been taken to court in recent years and have lost. They have misinterpreted their own legislation on the basis of what they had said they would do rather than what was set out in the relevant Act. We are bound by the Act.
While I welcome what the Minister said in the first instance, I would never accept a situation in which the Secretary of State, irrespective of political party, was to be the referee of every contest concerning housing. I do not think that it would work. The scheme is dependent on the situation in different areas of the country. There could be a variety of rulings from the Secretary of State depending on political pressures. I do not think that the Minister is naive enough to believe that that does not happen at times. Very often decisions which defy belief are made relating to housing. Some of those decisions are made on the basis of political consideration and not on the merits of the case.
I should like to read what the Minister has said in reply to the amendment, particularly in respect of those aspects which gave me some hope. However, I have no hope at all if the Secretary of State—any Secretary of State—is to be the referee on any question of housing. We are talking about people, mostly at the lower end of the income scale, whose only security has been the fact that they are tenants in a local authority council house. They thought they would live there all their lives and that no one would interfere with them.
470
It may be that some good will come out of the HATs. I hope that it will but on the basis of what the Minister said I do not believe it will. However, I should like to read what the Minister has said and digest it with my colleagues and other people concerned. Perhaps he may dwell on what I have said, because I do not believe that we can leave the situation as it is with the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, as referee.
On that premise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and to consider the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 86 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125E:
Page 67, line 6, leave out subsection ("2").
The noble Lord said: Clause 89 is concerned with the information which local authorities may be required to supply to the Secretary of State in order to facilitate the establishment of housing action trusts. I want to say from the beginning that we are not opposed to the principle of Clause 89. That information should be required and the Secretary of State should be able to specify the information that is required. It is clearly proper, if Parliament has decided that there should be housing action trusts, that it should will the means as well as the end. That is what Clause 89 does in principle.
What we object to is subseciton (2) of Clause 89, which requires that any officer of the authority
"(a) who has the custody or control of any document to which the notice relates, or
(b) who is in a position to give information to which the notice relates, shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the notice is complied with".
We object to that principally for the reason it ignores the structure of local government departments and organisation and ignores the responsibility which senior officers, chief officers and ultimately the chief executive and the council itself of an authority have for the actions of their junior officers.
It has always been our view that when an obligation is laid on a local authority it is the responsibility of the council, and through the council the chief executive, to see to it that the obligations of the authorities are fulfilled by giving the appropriate instructions to junior officers. We do not believe that it is appropriate that a junior officer who may happen to have the custody or control of a document or who is in a position to give information should have the obligation placed upon him rather than that the responsibility should lie with the chief officer, the chief executive and the council to ensure that the obligation is carried out.
We are not just theorising. There is a long line of examples of legislation requiring local authorities to give information. For example, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984—which was the paving Act for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties—did not have a condition like subsection (2). It stated that the council and its officers had to give the

471
information. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act of 1985 used the phrase "a proper officer" rather than the provisions of subsection (2).
We should be very much happier if the Government would think again about this matter, go back to the previous precedents for ways of ensuring that the information is provided but that it is provided on the instruction and authority of the chief officers and ultimately of the council itself. That would be in accordance with the precedent and with the command structure, one might say, of local authorities as they exist.
There is one further consideration, which is that of data protection. Much information relating to housing records is kept on computer. It is subject to the Data Protection Act. Under the Data Protection Act the obligations to protect the security of those records when they are held on computer is, I assume, overriding and cannot be lessened by any provision of this Act. From the way in which the Data Protection Act is framed it appears that it is ultimately the senior person of any organisation who is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of that Act are fulfilled. If a request could come to and be fulfilled by a junior officer, it is difficult to see how the Data Protection Act requirement and the responsibility of the chief officer under that Act could be maintained.
We do not ask for anything different. We are not saying that information should in any way be withheld. We are not weakening the provisions of the clause. We are trying to take out something which in itself weakens the administrative and organisational structure of local authorities and which in our view is clearly undesirable to that extent. I beg to move.
9 P.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I can understand why the noble Lord is concerned that the provision that this amendment seeks to remove places a difficult duty on officers of a local authority. We would not seek to require them to comply with this duty lightly. But the important issue—as I know the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is aware—is the needs of the tenants on the estates that we have proposed for designation. We want to do the best we can to make HATs work effectively for the benefit of their tenants, and that is the reason for this provision.
I am clear that the Secretary of State will need to obtain information from a local authority to enable correct decisions to be made about designation of areas as HAT areas and for HATs to be given information which will help them function more effectively. Our readiness to lay a duty on individual officers as well as the local authority as a whole is an indication of the importance which we attach to getting HATs up and running for the benefit of the tenants. If HATs are going to be correctly designated and if they are going to achieve their objects in the best possible way, we may need to ask local authority officers to fulfil this duty. I hope such circumstances do not arise, but we need to be ready if they do.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of some previous legislation. Yes, our
472
measures are based on the provisions of Section 5 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 and those contained in Section 169 of the Housing Act 1985. Clearly he has raised an important point. Perhaps he will allow me to look at the precise wording. He knows the principle that we are trying to achieve and I am sure that he would support that principle. Clearly the wording is important, and clarifying the wording of legislation is one of the roles that this Chamber fulfils extremely well. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to take this matter away to look at the precise wording in order to meet his concerns. He will also be able to understand ours.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for those final words, which give me some reassurance because I am bound to say that the noble Earl's first words struck me as totally irrational. To say that one embarks on a new procedure of interrogating junior officers simply because the information is important does not seem to me to be a rational way to proceed. I am glad that in his final remarks the Minister recognised that point. On the basis of what he has said I am disposed to withdraw the amendment although I shall not do it just yet.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to make a general comment to the Committee. I shall read very carefully what all noble Lords have said during our debates on the Housing Bill and particularly their remarks on housing action trusts. I shall be spending quite a lot of time during the recess understanding the way in which we propose that housing action trusts should work and indeed meeting some of those involved. We want housing action trusts to work and I shall be looking for a positive response from local authorities and those tenants who may become members of housing action trusts. I can assure noble Lords that I shall be taking extremely seriously the duties of this very important area of housing in which I am now privileged to be actively involved.
I should like also to take this opportunity to raise one other matter, though I shall be answering a Question on this subject tomorrow. Noble Lords may perhaps have noticed that once or twice I have come to the Dispatch Box since I started the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill on 14th July. At this point I should like to say thank you very much to all the officers of the House whom I have kept late on more than one occasion, to those who have compiled the Official Report, and the Clerks. I think that they have done a splendid job in serving us so well. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the most courteous way in which he has handled the Housing Bill, together with the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Graham of Edmonton. I wish them all a very happy Recess.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be churlish and against my instincts and judgment if I did not respond by thanking the noble Earl for his remarks. I know that because of the pressure of business we are in the middle of the Committee stage of this Bill but it gives us all time to pause and read further so that

473
we can learn more about the very difficult problems with which this Bill confronts us.
The noble Earl will not be surprised to know that in the past couple of weeks we have not felt in any way happier about the Housing Bill or many of its objectives. However, we recognise his sincerity and the skill and courtesy with which he has guided the Bill so far, as indeed has his noble friend Lord Hesketh, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on Tuesday.
It is always a pleasure to debate with the noble Lord. We know that our arguments are treated seriously and that sometimes the force of argument achieves more than perhaps one achieves in a Division lobby.
I reciprocate by wishing all noble Lords a very fruitful and restful Recess. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past nine o'clock.