Lords Sitting of 27 October 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act,

Harwich Parkeston Quay Act,

Church of England (Pensions) Measure.

Road Accidents: No-Fault Scheme
3.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with the recommendation of the Review Body on Civil Justice that consideration should be given to the feasibility of a no-fault scheme for less serious road accidents.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the report of the Review Body on Civil Justice was published on 7th June. Members of the public were invited to comment on the report, and the recommendations put forward by the review body are still being considered in the light of comments received.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, which at any rate means that we are not going backwards. As the civil justice review was precluded from considering the substantive law of negligence, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, who seems to be in a reforming mood, whether there will be an opportunity to consider the Pearson recommendation for a no-fault system for road traffic accidents broadly on the lines of the industrial injuries scheme, a recommendation which has never been adequately debated in the House over all these years and on which there is now a wealth of experience in other parts of the world?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain whether the noble Lord said "mood" or "mode". The proposals of the Review Body on Civil Justice have in general a high priority. I know that the Royal Commission under Lord Pearson, of which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was a distinguished member, made proposals in this connection. I hope that all the proposals of the civil justice review will be dealt with perhaps more quickly than that proposal of the
1702
Pearson Commission. This is only one of the matters currently being considered. I know that a wealth of experience has now been gained in some other countries. I am not sure that all of it is favourable to the proposal but I can assure the noble Lord that the matter is still under consideration.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord accept that, whatever the difficulties, the present law of negligence is just a lottery and that many people who might claim under it are quite unable to risk the costs of doing so in the High Court? If one can only realise that there is a problem, one is half way to solving it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not accept that the present law of negligence creates a lottery. There are well established principles in that law, developed over the years and still being developed. As regards the cost of litigation generally, and the cost of this type of litigation in particular, the proposals of the civil justice review endeavour to tackle the matter. There is the proposal that quite a high proportion of such cases would he heard not in the High Court but in the county court; there is also the proposal that cases involving up to £1,000 in value might be heard by the small claims system.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give his view on the recommendation of the Review Body on Civil Justice that he should consider in consultation with the insurance industry the feasibility of a no-fault scheme restricted to less serious road accidents? Is it not the case that injuries caused by road accidents run into hundreds of thousands each year? Yet only about a quarter of those accidents result successfully in a claim in tort. Is it not high time that this matter was dealt with urgently?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Review Body on Civil Justice proposed that further consideration should be given to the feasibility of a no-fault scheme for less serious road accidents. Notwithstanding the position, in the light of such inquiries as it was able to make, it did not feel able to make this proposal but thought it right that further consideration should be given to it. The civil justice review has been put out to consultation. We have received a small number of responses to the recommendation from representatives of the insurance industry. Respondents have expressed some reservations about the scope of any no-fault scheme but have indicated that they would be prepared to participate in discussions. We may be able to take this matter forward in discussion, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned, one or two other matters are at present under consideration. It is a question of trying to order one's priorities.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that no-claim personal injury ought to be a fair claim upon the taxpayer generally under the welfare state? It would not cost each taxpayer very many pennies per annum. Surely, the taxpayer would be happy to pay as an extension of the welfare state.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships are aware that there are already benefits payable under what the noble Lord referred to as the welfare state, apart altogether from any question of fault or negligence. I am not sure precisely how he arrives at the figure of a few pence per taxpayer; I doubt whether it is as simple as that.
Some road accident compensation figures are very large and the issue is really whether you pay rather small amounts to many people, or large amounts to people who have been injured as a result of established or proven fault. It is not self-evident as to which is the best system. It may well be that discussions will yield some consensus on the matter. However, at the moment it looks as though the indications are that there will be further discussions before any final view is taken.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Pearson Commission, which reported some time ago, costed a no-fault scheme on roughly the New Zealand model at something like £24 million per year, based on the prices prevailing at that time? Is it not a fact that most of the no-fault schemes—apart from that in Massachusetts—offer compensation at rather a lower level than is commonly offered in the Commonwealth courts of either England or Scotland?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is perfectly right. As I understand it, the schemes for no-fault compensation yield—as I sought to say earlier—rather smaller amounts than are awarded generally in the courts.
As regards the ultimate cost of such a scheme, it is quite difficult to reach a firm estimate because the estimate must depend on the level of compensation which is decided upon. That is one of the factors of critical importance when deciding whether to go ahead. However, a few pence per taxpayer is possibly something of an underestimate.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the recommendation of the Pearson Commission was not to follow the New Zealand precedent; it was more related to the industrial injuries scheme here which covers large awards by the courts in serious cases? As I recall, the estimate was that the cost could be met by, say, two pence on a gallon of petrol, prices of petrol varying so much that one would hardly notice the difference.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understood the Pearson Commission to have made a recommendation broadly on the lines described by the noble Lord. As he was a member of the commission, I feel certain that he describes the proposal accurately. Two pence on the price of a gallon of petrol might seem a good deal to those who drive a lot. However, the critical matter is the level at which compensation is fixed. No estimate can deal with that until the level has been determined.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that acceptance of such a no-fault
1704
scheme might well obviate the necessity for his having to consider a reform by which solicitors would not expect to receive a fee if they lost a case and only receive a fee if they won it—a scheme which is anathema to some members of a very learned profession?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hear a comment suggesting that I might be able to excuse myself from answering that question on the basis that it is a little wide of the original Question. However, notwithstanding that, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that this is a matter which we intend to open up for discussion. The view of the profession to which he refers will have to be taken into account. But it may not be the only view available on the subject.

Nurses: Retention and Recruitment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to prevent nurses leaving the National Health Service.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a number of steps designed to improve nursing retention and recruitment have already been taken. These include improvements in pay, which has risen on average by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation since this Government took office, and the new clinical grading structure. Steps are also being taken in relation to training, career development, accommodation and equality of opportunities for women.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. What he has just said reflects great credit on both sides of the negotiating table. Why then does the Secretary of State refrain from continuing those discussions with the professional leaders, involving issues such as funding, clinical grading appeals and the shortage of nurses in some areas?
Would it not be wise for the Secretary of State to continue the discussions and the endeavours made at the negotiating table where the results which the noble Lord has just mentioned could possibly be improved upon and thereby not in any way arrest the desire of young people to become nurses in the NHS?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure Members of your Lordships' House that there is no desire by the department to deter anyone from joining the NHS. However, my right honourable friend has declined to see the staff side of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council because the Government have fully funded the pay award giving nurses an average increase of 17.9 per cent. Further, nurses will now be told their grades.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a serious question which should be taken seriously? Young girls under training, for example, at the University College Hospital, are receiving

1705
propaganda from America—it is supposed to be an ally—offering them three times the salaries they are now receiving or likely to receive, far better accommodation and free air travel. It urges them to leave this country once they are qualified and join the Americans. That will be after they have had all our training. What is the Minister going to do about it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I too have read in the newspapers somewhat inflated figures about this subject. However, in the year ended 31st March 1988 the United Kingdom Central Council received 908 requests from nurses for verification of their qualifications to be sent to a registering authority in the United States. That is an increase of 23 per cent. over the previous year. However, a large proportion of the inquiries came from enrolled nurses who do not satisfy the American requirements.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in view of the importance of the provision of affordable living accommodation to the recruitment and retention of nurses, can the Minister tell us of any progress which has been made in the matters about which we were told by the noble Lord's predecessor concerning the re-establishment of some of the nurses' homes which have been taken out of commission, and other means of providing affordable living accommodation? What progress has been made in the matters about which we were told?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a review of the conditions under which staff occupy accommodation is at present being undertaken by the National Health Service Management Board. That review is now at an advanced stage and the board's proposals are being considered in the light of the Housing Bill, one of the purposes of which is to increase the amount of private sector accommodation available for rent. Furthermore, a mortgage package has been introduced by the Nationwide Anglia Building Society. The aim of the scheme is to provide low cost 100 per cent. mortgages to help national health staff cope with high housing costs in London.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that by saying that the current nurses' pay increase has been fully funded he has made a controversial statement? Does he agree that the difficulty in retaining nurses illustrates the difficulties of the present system of funding public sector pay increases; and that that system leaves the Government the proud possessor of more hot potatoes than McDonald's?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of that great store of hot potatoes. I can assure the noble Earl that if one looks at last year's figures for nurses leaving the National Health Service, which might be a good point at which to start, one sees that there were 23,900 leavers, whereas 20,800 newly-qualified staff entered the service. However, what is more important, some 7,200 nurses returned to nursing thus giving a net total of some 28,000 staff going into the health service.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, reverting to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, perhaps I may once again ask the Government why they do not charge foreign organisations recruiting nurses in Britain and the private sector for the training which is undergone at state expense.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we live in a free country. Furthermore, last year there were 5,800 nurses who asked for their qualifications to be verified overseas, but 4,177 wished to be qualified in this country from the Community. I wonder whether the question that the noble Lord has asked is being asked in the countries of those who wish to come to work in this country.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am not asking for the nurses to be charged; I am asking that the organisations recruiting those nurses be charged.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, how could such a charge possibly be enforced?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Molloy, will the Minister assure the House that if it emerges that the nurses feel that they have been unfairly or unjustly treated his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to have discussions with the leaders of the nursing unions to resolve the difficulties?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there can be no better sign of faith than the commitment that the Government have made to nurses' pay. I must remind the House that the Administration that preceded this Administration reduced their pay by 25 per cent. in real terms.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have been critical of nurses' pay and conditions under both Administrations? However, is it not also fair to point out that many nurses go to the Commonwealth, especially Australia and New Zealand, to further their training and that many nurses come from Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere to nurse here? Therefore is it not necessary to get those figures into proportion before we are too critical of the present situation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for the point made by my noble friend Lord Auckland, because I had hoped to point out in an earlier answer that to a great extent there is a two-way traffic in this affair.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asked the Minister a question which he appeared not to have heard. Will he be good enough to reply to it? Are the Government now ready to meet the nurses' unions once again to discuss the matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier. My right honourable friend has declined to see the staff side again on the basis that the Government have fully funded the award of some 17.9 per cent.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit the female orthopaedic ward at Leeds General Infirmary where he will find very old out-dated beds, lumpy mattresses which give the patients pressure sores, inadequate washing facilities and frustrated nurses who feel that they could do a better job if there were better patient facilities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always a privilege to answer a question from the noble Baroness, but I feel that it is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. If she would like to put down a Question on that point I should be more than happy to answer it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the conditions under which nurses work are almost of equal importance as their salaries, and that many of the failings are the result of their feelings that management does not care about them? They rarely see management on the wards. They have the impression that it does not know what they are doing. That feeling was further reinforced during the summer when questions were being asked and DHSS officials said that they had to visit a hospital before they could assess what sisters were doing.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of what the noble Countess is saying. Pay is not the only point. One of the keys of the clinical regrading is to increase career prospects for nurses in the clinical wards. Management, pay and prospects are the three great things needed to make for an even better National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question is not merely one of pay? Is he aware that there is grave discontent among nurses, health visitors and midwives, especially on the issue of clincial grading which I mentioned? The fundamental steps have been taken. They now want to sit around the table. Is that a terrible thing to want to do? If the unions had been accused of not being prepared to come to the table to discuss such matters Members opposite would have been outraged, and so would everyone else. Under the leadership of Mr. Hector MacKenzie, who is an expert on these matters, they are willing and prepared to talk to the Minister. Will the Minister try to convince the Secretary of State that he would be helping all Britain's nurses if he were to talk to their professional leaders?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that it is fair to say that after the pay award has been completed there will be a different point of view.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why there is often a shortage of nurses is that their hands are so eagerly sought in marriage?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only say that we now have a record number of nurses in the health service.

Street Cleaning in Brent
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider using their powers under Sections 97 and 22 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to ensure the cleaning of the streets in the London Borough of Brent.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, while the problems in Brent arise in part from the council's mismanagement, I understand that the immediate difficulties are due to industrial action by its employees. I also understand that the council intends to continue to comply with its statutory duties once the dispute is settled. It would not, in the circumstances, be appropriate to use default powers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that Brent's difficulties are by no means confined to the immediate problems? Is he aware that there have been complaints on the subject of street cleaning for nearly two years? Will the Minister tell us why he regards the council's present assurances as more credible than any others it has yet given? Will he further undertake to keep the matter under review?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course we shall keep the matter under review because it is very serious if streets are not cleaned. However, surely the answer is for the local people, the residents, to vote out those councillors and in the meanwhile put pressure on them.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the results of the by-election in Brent last week showed what most people think of the council's policy on rubbish and also that most people think that many of the council's other policies are rubbish?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the residents of Brent, in that ward in particular, showed clearly what they thought of the council's policies. I am happy to note that the Labour Party managed to pip the Greens for third place and registered 3.8 per cent. of the vote, while the Conservatives had 83.5 per cent. of the vote. It is clear that what the people want is proper local services provided cost-efficiently by local government—not NUPE government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Earl the Minister said that the Government were not going to exercise their default powers. I hold no particular brief for the council of the London Borough of Brent but if the Minister will not intervene, should he not refrain from criticising individual councils in this way and accusing them of mismanagement? In other words, should he not put up or shut up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, we know exactly what the London Borough of Brent has done from the way in which the poor suffering ratepayers

1709
have had to put up with substantial rises. There are default powers under Section 97 of the Control of Pollution Act. If the situation becomes serious then the Government will probably have to take action. However, we do not want to interfere with the local authority. It has said that it will bring the matter under control and we hope that it will do so quickly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as the community charge system comes into place the people of Brent may make their presence felt and demand a service at least comparable to that of the people of Wandsworth?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one of the great advantages of the community charge will be that pressure will be put on councillors in a far more effective way than at the moment.

R&D Spending: Comparisons
3.33 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much they spend on civil research and development, expressed as a percentage of GDP; and what is the corresponding figure for the private sector.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I undertook to write to the noble Lord with this information on 14th June, following the Question he asked on that day. I very much regret that, due to an oversight, I did not do so. The latest year for which figures are available is 1986. Government-funded research and development amounted to 0·6 per cent. of the GDP. The corresponding figure for the private sector was 1·2 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am glad to have that explanation from the Secretary of State, which I fully accept. Does the Minister agree that a high level of research and development is of the utmost importance in an economy such as ours? Is he aware that in both the public and private sectors the percentages which he has just given fall in particular below those of our competitors, not least the United States of America, Germany and Japan? When will the Government take seriously their role in both the public and private sectors of research and development?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the last year for which I have total figures is 1986. If we examine the figures, we find that the United Kingdom spent some 2·4 per cent. of GDP on R&D, compared with 2·3 per cent. for France and 2·8 per cent. for the United States. Although figures for Germany and Japan are not available, it is true that they are far closer to those of the United States than to ours.
If we look at government-funded R&D, in 1985 we spent 1.2 per cent., compared with 1.3 per cent. for the United States and 1.4 per cent. for France. We
1710
appear to have spent almost three times as much as Japan on government-funded R&D as a percentage of GDP in 1985. That is at least something which would cause many people surprise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that his department was alerted to his unfortunate failure to write to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington by the Library of this House? Our Library was only alerted to this yesterday by myself when I asked for the figures that the noble Lord had promised. Is he aware that the department described this failure as "an administrative error"? Does the Minister accept that it makes the task of opposition rather difficult in this House if we cannot get access to figures that have been promised us in the Library?
I have tried to reconstruct some of the figures that the noble Lord has given us today in preparation for this Question. I arrived at slightly different figures from those of the noble Lord but he has information which I do not possess. Has the Minister any up-to-date figure on Japanese expenditure on civil research and development? In the annual review, as he will be aware, the OECD has withdrawn the Japanese figures, for reasons which I do not quite understand. Can the noble Lord give us any figure for civil research and development in Japan, funded by private industry as opposed to the Japanese Government, with which we can compare the figures that he gave us today?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is infallible. I certainly am not; nor are most human beings. An oversight took place by my department. I apologised for it this morning in writing, and I apologise in front of your Lordships' House now. I think that the noble Lord should look carefully at this, particularly when last week he quoted so very much out of context to me on another matter which arose in your Lordships' House. Industry-funded R&D in 1985 in the United Kingdom was 1 per cent. of GDP. In Japan it was 1.8 per cent.; in France it was 0.9 per cent.; in the United States of America it was 1.3 per cent. In all this argument it is the quality of research that counts, not the quantity.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the further stimulus of civil R&D should constitute one of the major steps to be taken, to prepare for the challenge of the single market in 1992?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. That is why my department's expenditure on R&D is directed mainly to progammes like LINK which look towards collaborative research for higher education institutions and the commercial world. It is directed also towards EUREKA which looks very much towards research being conducted by United Kingdom companies and companies in France, Germany and members of the Community. It is as well to accept that it is a EUREKA programme that has enabled us in two and a half years to develop a compatible system for high definition television and one which I believe will successfully rival and challenge the Japanese system for that process.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the noble Lord agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about this challenge, why is so little R&D going to Wales, Scotland and some of the regions of England? Is the noble Lord aware that the amount going to the South-East is out of all proportion? There is no opportunity in Wales for a development of this kind and that is causing acute concern in Scotland, Wales and the North of England.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, R&D expenditure goes to those establishments which are spending it on R&D. It does not go as a regional policy. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should know very well that expenditure on regional aid in Wales far exceeds that in England. I have seen figures for Wales which show tremendous developments in the Principality. I should hardly have thought that that was a serious complaint. If research establishments are set up in the Principality which qualify for aid then they will get it. We do not allocate that sort of money on a regional basis.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I take the point the noble Lord makes, but I wish to mention one figure. Out of £100 million allocated for R&D in microelectronics, £40 million goes to the South-East and £200,000 goes to Wales. That is a balance out of all proportion.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it may well be entirely in proportion, if one considers the establishments that exist in those areas to carry out this research. I must confess that I have not detected any great anti-Welsh bias in my department, but I shall go back and examine the matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, when will the Government make a statement about their intentions on the future of civilian research into nuclear fusion? Can the Secretary of State, even now, give an assurance that that statement will not make it inevitable that JET should close down or leave this country in 1992?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have studied the Question intently, but I cannot find very much connection between the original Question and the question the noble Lord has just put. If he would care to place his question on the Order Paper or write to me, I should be only too happy to answer it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as the figures which the Secretary of State gave to me are so much at variance with the figures I have, and, apparently, with the figures which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has, will the Secretary of State be so kind as to let me have the source of his figures? I agree with the noble Lord's statement that quality counts, rather than quantity in itself. But is he implying that in this country, both in the public and the private sectors, the quality is not as high as it should be?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. However, there have been notable cases in the past, even in this country, when considerable expenditure on R&D has
1712
been totally wasted. It is important that we fund only those projects which are worth funding.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale repeats, with the leave of the House, a Statement that is being made in another place on social security benefits up-rating, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I announce that the Report stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988 will be taken.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the up-rating of social security benefits currently being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the up-rating of social security benefits. The necessary statutory instrument, which will bring my proposals into effect, will be laid before both Houses and debated. Up-rating will take place for most benefits in the week beginning 10th April next year, the first full week in the tax year. The provisions will apply in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
"This year I have more increases than usual to announce. I am varying some of the increases to target them better on those who need them most. And I am pleased to announce additional help for claimants to ensure that we are more than correcting for the error discovered in the retail prices index last year.
"I propose to concentrate on the main features. I have set out the details in a full schedule which is now available in the Vote Office and which, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall publish in the Official Report.
"The social security budget is huge: nearly£50 billion a year, almost one-third of all public expenditure. The increases I am announcing today amount to more than £2 billion. It is thanks to the growth in the economy and to the success of our economic policies that we are able to afford to bring this substantial help to pensioners, disabled people, and to lower income families on benefit. It is right that we should continue to help in this way everyone who needs that help. But it is equally right that we should continue to target this massive expenditure, to ensure that it is concentrated to best effect, on those who need it most.
"I should like to make it clear that this is where my priorities lie, in carrying forward the policies

1713
which I began last year, of redirecting increases within these large sums to be most helpful to those in most need of help and to stimulate the proper responsibilities and personal efforts of those who do not need to rely on benefit.
"I start with the main rates of contributory benefits and benefits for war pensioners, disabled people and others. The retail prices index published on 14th October showed an increase in prices over the 12 months to September 1988 of 5.9 per cent. But the RPI was subject to a minor error which was corrected during this period. This increase of 5.9 per cent. corrects the error which was made earlier in the RPI; that is, 5.9 per cent. includes both the correction for the error and the rise in prices since then. But to make quite sure that benefits are up-rated by at least as much as they would have been if the error had not occurred, they will be up-rated either by the published figure of 5.9 per cent. or by the amount arrived at by recalculating the benefit from the last correct rate in July 1986 using the adjusted movement in prices since then, whichever figure is the higher.
"I should like to emphasise that we shall pay whichever is the higher figure from the two calculations which we have done for each benefit. If we had not done this, pensioner couples, for example, would, using recalculated figures for past up-ratings, have been 5 pence a week worse off. This approach more than fulfils the promise which my honourable friend the Minister of State gave to the House last December, when the error was discovered. On top of the special payments of over £100 million already made to pensioners and others earlier this year, I am now putting the benefit rates right for the future in the most favourable possible way. I am placing in the Library of the House full details of all the rates, and of all the calculations needed to carry out our intention to adopt a best of both worlds approach.
"The basic retirement pension for a single person will thus rise by £2.45 a week, from £41.15 to £43.60, and for a married couple by £3.90 a week, from £65.90 to £69.80. Pensioners' total incomes, including their occupational pensions and savings, have grown steadily since 1979—by over 23 per cent. on average in real terms compared with a miserable rate of 0.6 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979. After allowing for inflation, pensioners' incomes have increased twice as fast as those of the population as a whole between 1979 and 1986. A range of government policies have played their part in this record, and it is one of which we as a government are proud. Public service pensions will be increased by 5.9 per cent. This fulfils the pledge given by the Paymaster General to correct the RPI error.
"I turn now to the income-related benefits. I restructured these benefits last April in a simpler scheme with new rates which is already proving much easier to understand and operate. I propose to up-rate these benefits in the normal way by the published movement of prices less housing costs. In addition, in recognition of the minor error in the RPI there will be further increases for pensioners, disabled people and families comparable to those
1714
for people on contributory benefits. Overall these measures to take account of the RPI error will cost some £10 million more than simply up-rating by the published indices.
"We are making a once and for all adjustment to income support levels to help meet the minimum 20 per cent. contribution which recipients will have to make to the community charge. This will also provide help for the rates liability which recipients in England and Wales will face next year. To this end we are including £1.15 a week for single people under 25 and £2.30 for couples. I am leaving the figure for single people over 25 at £1.30, the present level, since that is the assistance they are currently receiving towards their domestic rate liability. This significant group will thus be more than compensated over the longer term—a more than adequate settlement.
"Before I come to the other increases I wish to announce, honourable Members will expect me to say something about child benefit. I have never made any secret of my belief that this benefit is not the most effective use of social security resources. It is paid to virtually every family in the country, no matter how large their income, at a cost of over £½ billion this year, a tenth of all benefit expenditure on social security. Furthermore, if we were to up-rate it across the hoard, most of the money would go to better-off families, including the very wealthiest. The poorest—those on income support—would gain nothing at all from the child benefit increase. Neither would those claiming family credit. That would be perverse targeting in the extreme.
"I have decided therefore, as last year, to direct help where it is most needed, to the lower income families with children. I propose to put substantial additional resources into the benefits going to those families. I have already said that there will be a prices up-rating of the child allowances and premiums in income support, family credit and housing benefit. That up-rating will cost £135 million. But on top of that I am adding an extra 50 pence a week to all these child allowances. This will cost an additional £70 million. The result is that we shall be directing over £200 million to the greater benefit of some three million children in lower income families.The rates for some children—those under 11 will go up by as much as 9.3 per cent., well in excess of a normal up-rating. These families will clearly be better off than if we had simply up-rated child benefit which I propose to leave unchanged.
"I know that some of my honourable friends have expressed concern about the position of families on low incomes. Unlike other parts of the benefit system, such as income support, when it comes to helping working families with children there is no cut-off point at low income levels. Family credit goes well up the income scale, for example to those earning £9,300 a year with two children aged 12 and 14, and even higher in some cases. I firmly believe that it is better to target resources in this way than to improve child benefit for all including those on the highest incomes.

1715
"I have further increases to announce, for disabled people, the elderly and families with young children. This is the tenth anniversary of Motability, the scheme set up to help disabled people to obtain cars on favourable terms. The scheme has been extended and has a fine record of success. It is now helping 60,000 people. I am pleased that this anniversary has been marked by the grant in May this year of a Royal charter. I am very glad to announce today that the Government will be contributing £5 million to a special trust fund which is being set up to celebrate the anniversary. Motability is a joint venture between government and the private sector, and the clearing banks also will be contributing £5 million. These new funds will increase fivefold the money available for Motability to spend each year and in particular will in future provide extra help for the more severely disabled people who need a specially adapted vehicle.
"I shall also be bringing forward legislation to extend the upper age limit for mobility allowance from 75 to 80 as an interim measure pending our consideration of the series of reports on the OPCS survey of disabled people. All this is good news for disabled people.
"Finally, I propose useful and what I hope will be welcome improvements to the very good scheme we already have for giving help during periods of very cold weather to pensioners, disabled people and families with young children on income support. First, I am changing the rules for the period over which temperatures are measured. This will in future be any consecutive seven days, and not limited to seven days starting on a Monday. Secondly, I am raising from two to five the age below which a child can make a family eligible. That will extend the scope of the scheme to nearly half a million more families. I shall be amending the regulations recently laid before the House to include these improvements which, taken together, could double expenditure on this scheme. It will be extra money well spent.
"This is an uprating which directs massive resources to where they are most needed. My proposals amply fulfil our pledges to pensioners and others who receive long-term benefits. They provide substantial extra help to families on low incomes and to disabled people. And, with other measures which I shall be bringing forward, they encourage those who are able to do so to support themselves and their families. In all some 16 million pensioners and others will benefit at a total cost of over £2 billion. That is the full measure of the success of this Government."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in courtesy I must thank the Minister for making that Statement even if I do not thank him for its contents. Before I comment in detail on the Statement I should like to say that I wish that we could do away with the procedural annual pantomime whereby Ministers spend months
1716
probably working on changes before bringing them to the House while the rest of us have about 10 minutes to go through very complicated documents. I am not making a party point; I feel sure that that view must be shared on all sides of the House. It does not illumine our exchanges if some of us are put at a severe disadvantage.
There is one aspect of the Statement which I am particularly glad about. That is the changes in the Motability scheme to which the Minister referred. I hope that he will be even more generous in the future.
I must bring several points to the Minister's attention and I am afraid that I shall have to ask a few questions. I shall do so as rapidly as possible but I am not sure that I can be as quick as the noble Lord. I am a slower reader and I have only just received all this "bumph".
We are told that the inflation rate is likely to rise to about 6 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has warned that it will go even higher. Therefore by next April I do not believe that many of the increases will be of real avail to people. They will have been more than swallowed up well before April by rising inflation.
The Minister said a great deal about pensioners. As a pensioner myself I am very glad to hear that I shall have a little more help. However, the Labour Party policy of linking increases in pensions to earnings has not been continued. I am told that as a result, in the nine years of Conservative government, the cumulative total which pensioners have lost is about £18 billion. Therefore. I do not think that the other side can be too proud of what they are doing for old age pensioners.
I must remind the Minister that pensioners received only a 4·2 per cent. increase last year. That was quickly swallowed up by inflation, particularly by higher prices on items which old people tend to need most and which are not always reflected in the RPI. I cannot understand why the Government are so anxious to use the term "targeting". It reminds me of people shooting bows and arrows at each other. It is a very dangerous social policy; it means that one sets aside groups of people and says, "You are the low paid, you are the poor, and we will target you." That is not healthy for the community.
I cannot find in the Statement what the Government plan to do for people who lost out last year and were given transitional benefits. What will happen to them next April? Will the Government increase national insurance contributions to offset some of the changes? I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the effects of mortgage interest rate increases on many families and that he will not forget that there may be some connection with the tax cuts included in the last Budget.
I am told that the average wage earner probably gained £12 a month in the Budget but that his mortgage repayments have now gone up by £30 a month—or even more in some cases. While £6 billion was given away—I say "given away" because it did not go into the Exchequer—we now hear that the Minister will not give an extra 45 pence a week to the children in this country. That is absolutely disgraceful.

1717
I do not have the up-to-date figures for the takeup of family credit and income support. The latest figure that I could obtain was 54 per cent. compared with nearly 100 per cent. for child benefit. In trying to switch to family credit and income support the Government are perhaps unwittingly deepening the poverty trap, because if those allowances are paid to people who are in especially poor circumstances they have absolutely no incentive for self-improvement. A person knows that if he does a little more work and obtains promotion which brings with it a few pounds a week more than the Government say he should earn, he loses all that benefit. On the other hand, child benefit, which is not wage-related, accompanies him up the income scale and that is something that I am sure we all want to see families trying to do.
This adds to what I think one Minister called the "dependency syndrome". If a man is better off staying at home and collecting some benefit, there is no incentive to go out to work. But if child benefit is preserved at its proper level in relation to inflation, there is a real benefit to the family. I said that "targeting is a word that is too often used but child benefit is targeted. It is targeted on all our children and I wish it would stay that way. It was not fully up-rated in 1985 and it was not up-rated at all either last year or this year. It is not good enough to say that it is frozen; in my view it is in the deep freeze.
I should not like to give the impression that we do not want more money to go to poor people. Of course we do. But why do the Government have to take that money from other people's children? We are told that the economy is fine and that the Exchequer is awash with money. If the Chancellor wants to up-rate income support and family credit, surely he has plenty of money which he can use to do that.
The Government say that some people believe —and I know that many of their supporters do. but not all of them—that there is something wrong about giving money to rich ladies who do not need it. But that is what they are doing. They are continuing to give £7.25 to all the rich mothers in the land. If the Government want to introduce a new policy for child support, that would be an honourable action and I am sure we should all carefully consider it. But if insistence on total availability and an across the-board, universal attitude is wrong, then why do the Government maintain it?
I am puzzled by the change in the Government's policy. Family support started with William Pitt when he first brought in income tax. He arranged that people with children should pay less than those who did not have children. That situation was maintained by successive governments until the 1975 Child Benefit Act which abolished income tax relief and family allowances and put them both together. The Conservatives did not oppose that Act. One of the good things that came out of it was that we all agreed that that was the right and proper thing to do.
Some of us, including the Minister, spent many weary hours in this House dealing with what are usually called the Fowler reforms. There were White Papers, Green Papers, a Bill—and amendments uncountable. The question of changing child benefit was not raised during the passage of that Bill which
1718
was supposed to reflect a root and branch, once-and for-all review which was the biggest since Beveridge. Now suddenly the Government seem to have turned against children in this extraordinary way. It is quite out of line with our friends in the EC who are much more generous. It is very difficult to understand.
I want to know whether the Government's real policy is to abolish child benefit, and by downgrading and devaluing it (as they did the death grant) they will soon be able to come along and say that it is not worth having. I think that that is a dishonest way to deal with the situation.
Another problem that the Government must face is that of the promise in their election address to the effect that child benefit would continue to be paid, as now, to the mother. "As now" must mean in the same framework of up-rating. One cannot say that one is paying child benefit in 1988 as in 1979 if it has been allowed to become devalued. Perhaps they are afraid that the Conservative Women's Associaton, which I understand strongly supports child benefit, would not be very pleased if the Government came out with a statement of that kind.
I should like to make just two more points. I am sorry, my Lords, but this is a long Statement and it is not my fault. I should like to refer briefly to a constitutional point. During the dreary passage of the Social Security Bill the noble Lord, Lord Banks, moved an amendment which stated that:
"The Secretary of State shall review the level of child benefit in April of each year, taking account of increases in the Retail Price Index and other relevant external factors".—[Official Report, 3/3/88; col. 311.]
The Minister asked this Chamber to reject that amendment, but all sides of the House refused to do so. It was passed by 97 votes to 84. It was not returned by the other place and so far as I am aware it is the law of the land. I wonder what happened to the amendment which was passed by your Lordships' House at that time.
I want to ask one question about the poll tax. I know that there was much talk about it yesterday and today. In The Times of 10th September I read that there had been a ruling on community charge to the effect that while both a man and woman on unemployment benefit were living at the same address only one would be able to claim a social security rebate. I am not speaking of a common law husband and wife; it might be a mother and daughter or friends sharing a flat. I did not see in The Times any rebuttal to that point from the Minister's department. I think the matter should be cleared up because it will affect many people.
We shall have to return to all these problems but mostly we regret the attitude of the Government to those who may be just £1 or £2—
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. We have a Standing Order which states that discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes. The noble Baroness has had half of it.
Baroness Jeger: Then I have another half to go my Lords! What we regret mostly is the attitude to those who may be just above what the Government decide is the poverty line. We do not applaud this Statement in any way.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. In the course of the Statement the Secretary of State referred to "pensioners' earnings", and naturally we shall all be gratified to learn that overall they are tending to increase on a satisfactory basis. However, the Government have to remember that some pensioners rely entirely on the basic pension. They tend to be the oldest among them. Those people have indeed lost, as the noble Baroness said, through the breaking of the link with earnings in the early days of this Government.
The Statement is mainly concerned with the annual up-rating to take account of inflation, and this year there is a higher rate of inflation. A higher rate of inflation leads to a higher cost. The Government seem to be congratulating themselves on meeting that higher cost instead of condemning themselves for causing it.
I am glad that the RPI error is taken care of. I welcome the changes that are made in the provisions for dealing with very cold weather. We shall wish to debate these matters very thoroughly when the orders come before the House, and in particular to examine the poll tax proposals to make sure that the Prime Minister's promise to protect the average liability of those receiving income supplement has been fulfilled.
I wish to join with the noble Baroness in deploring the fact that for the second year running the Government have failed to up-rate child benefit. I deplore it because this is a benefit with no poverty trap implications as it is not withdrawable. On the other hand, I believe that family credit has already increased by three-quarters the number of people facing marginal tax plus benefit withdrawal rates of 70 per cent. or more. Child benefit is a benefit that has a take-up rate of 100 per cent. Family credit is estimated not to have exceeded 50 per cent. in its operation since April. Therefore 50 per cent. of the poorest will suffer through the freeze. People with children generally are falling behind. We ought to remember that child benefit was instituted to assist that category of people. It replaced among other things the income tax allowances which existed previously.
We are told that it costs £4.5 billion to pay out child benefit, but the remaining personal allowances lose in revenue £25 billion. I imagine that it is not proposed to freeze them even though they give more to those on higher rates of tax, which child benefit does not.
Like the noble Baroness, I should like to refer to the amendment approved by this House on 3rd March 1988. Whatever the technical effect of that amendment, it was clearly taken as a statement of opinion by this House that it favoured the annual up-rating of child benefit. I very much regret that the Government decided to flout the recorded view of the House in this matter. They certainly cannot expect the House to receive the news of that with acclaim.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their instant reactions to this Statement. Kinder things
1720
were said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who was obviously listening to the Statement, than by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who I know was reading through the Statement as I was reading it to your Lordships. It is absolutely amazing; I do not think she has the same Statement. Despite what she said, this is an up-rating for families. It is targeted—yes. It is meant to be targeted. Your Lordships' House is a targeting House. Your Lordships target your thoughts very firmly, for instance, on disabled people. We have a very strong representation of disabled people in this House. What is wrong with targeting?
We are making available an extra £70 million to the neediest families. We are doing that by increasing children's allowances in the income-related benefits by 50p more than required by the normal up-rating rules. That extra money goes to those very families who would not have gained from an increase in child benefit. Together with the normal increases in benefit that means that we are directing around £200 million more to 1½ million of the poorest families. To have up-rated child benefit would have meant spending resources on a larger number of families—of course that is true. But what is also true is that over 40 per cent. of those families earn more than the national average. However, the approach that we adopt channels extra money to the poorest 22 per cent. of the families. I do not see anything wrong with that.
Spending on the elderly in the United Kingdom— which was another point raised by the noble Baroness—is the third highest in the European Community as a share of gross domestic product. At 9.6 per cent. it is just behind Denmark and France, and higher than Germany, the Netherlands and so on. Figures for 1983—the latest available—bear that out. Partial figures for 1984 show spending in the United Kingdom up with spending in other states down. I do not think that we fail to stand by our pensioners.
I was asked about transitional protection. I point out that 89 per cent. of all income support claimants will receive some increase from this up-rating. Clearly it is most important to get people out of transitional protection as soon as possible. That is what this up-rating achieves: 97 per cent. of all pensioners will benefit; 68 per cent. of income support recipients will receive all their increase. I hope that the House is pleased with that.
Not surprisingly, child benefit figures largely in your Lordships' thoughts. We have reaffirmed our manifesto commitment to child benefit; and we have reviewed it. The fact that we have not up-rated it does not mean that we have not reviewed it. Clearly we have reviewed it. We have decided that resources can be better spent elsewhere. Child benefit will continue in the same form and structure as at present and will be paid directly to the mother. The rate of the benefit is considered annually when benefit rates generally are reviewed. Decisions about its level cannot be made in advance. They have to be made in the light of circumstances at the time.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to an amendment on the review of child benefit which was carried in this House—they are

1721
quite right—against the Government's wishes on the basis that it was tautological. That is why the Government have not brought a commencement order in respect of that amendment although I accept that it remains on the statute book in the Act.
On community charge, I am afraid that I must advise the noble Baroness that she is wrong. If two claimants are in receipt of income support they will both be entitled to the community charge rebate. In other words, they will be treated as separate units. If they are on income support they will both receive it.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his much more moderate tone, talked about the financial incentives to work. We are building on a new structure of benefits which ends the absurd situation where a person on family income supplement whose pay went up could be left worse off than before. It is true that by practically eliminating marginal tax rates in the 95 per cent. to 100 per cent. bracket the effect has been to shunt them lower down. But this uprating, I am advised, makes no difference to that. Even before this uprating is introduced far fewer people are now better off when not working than even a few years ago.
I repeat what has been said in the Statement: family credit goes a long way up the income scale. The effect of the changes announced today is to broaden but not to deepen the trap about which the noble Lord is so concerned. No working families need now have combined deductions for taxes and benefits which exceed their extra earnings.
Lastly, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about Section 5 of the 1988 Act. That concerns a review of child benefits which I have already covered.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps we could he allowed a minute or so after the 13 minutes taken up by the noble Baroness. There are just three points that I should like to make. We welcome some of the measures in this Statement, in particular those concerning cold weather and the Motability improvements.
There are three points which really must be made on child benefit. The first is ethical. I am not one who believes that party manifestoes should be holy writ, but the Government clearly do. To the average layman the phrase,
"Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother",
embodies two points, not one. The phrase "as now" would appear to any reasonable person to include the up-rating which had taken place regularly prior to 1987. I do not want to use unparliamentary language and I do not propose to do so, but many people will draw their own conclusions on that.
The second point concerns conflicting standards for charges on the Treasury. The Government want to freeze child benefit because it is untargeted and benefits some who do not need it. But what about the married man's tax allowance, which is also totally untargeted and also costs the Treasury in the region of £4½billion, roughly the same as child benefit? Will the Government freeze that too? Logic would so dictate, but I do not expect the noble Lord to answer me in the affirmative.
1722
Finally, a technical point was touched on by the noble Baroness. Even if the Government increase family credit by £200 million, we are faced with the serious drawback of this benefit that it still attracts only 50 per cent. take-up and it is withdrawn at a marginal rate of 70 per cent. or more, which means that it does not release people effectively from the poverty trap; while child benefit, on the other hand, has virtually 100 per cent. take-up and has no poverty trap side-effects. It is also a nonsense to say, as the Statement does, that most of the money would go to better-off families, including the wealthy. There are 720,000 families in this country earning £25,000 or above, but 6,700,000 with incomes below £15,000— by no means rich—and where the woman in the household could very well do with this money.
Pending the introduction of an integrated tax benefit system, which the Government show no signs of introducing, and because methods of taxing child benefit are extremely difficult to devise, we are strongly of the opinion that child benefit should be maintained and up-rated for the foreseeable future. For all those grounds we cannot welcome this part of the Statement.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to some of the answers I gave to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite just now. However, I would point out that child benefit is paid without a means test to all who have children, and that is totally consistent with the manifesto commitment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that many of us do not share the view of the noble Baroness in criticising this procedure and that, on the contrary, many of us feel that when a matter of this importance is brought forward it would be an outrage if a Statement of this kind were not made?
One appreciates the noble Baroness's problem, but perhaps she will allow me to say that it does not seem to have unduly restricted her capacity to comment. I want to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the great body of thoughtful, responsible opinion on social security matters in this country is enormously glad to see the shift of expenditure which the Statement carries even further towards the least well off. It is appreciated that the enormous burden of social expenditure needs to be more and more concentrated on those who really need it. is my noble friend aware that it is because the Statement takes us quite a long way in that direction that it will be extremely well received in your Lordships' House and in the country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House would do well to note the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He and I clearly belong to that great body of thoughtful opinion, as he calls it, who are unrepentent targeters.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord what he meant when he said that the Government's objection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, which was carried in the House, was tautological. What did he really mean?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should he delighted to explain myself. It said the same thing twice.
Noble Lords: The amendment?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, not the amendment, my Lords. The statute book now says the same thing twice but in slightly different forms. The original Act commits the Secretary of State to review the level of child benefit annually, which is done immediately before the up-rating Statement every year. The noble Lord's amendment required us to do that again in April. I regard that as tautological.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am conscious of the stricture that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, laid on us at the beginning of these exchanges, but I also remember that the noble Lord made a fairly lengthy statement himself earlier this week on another Statement. I should have thought that that was quite unfair.
I thought I heard the Minister say that this Statement would be debated. If he can confirm that, it would assist me. I could quite dramatically shorten my remarks and confine myself to one or two questions. I should first like him to say whether there will be a debate and whether it will be soon. Secondly, I should like to congratulate him on repeating the Statement. I do not want to be churlish about everything that is in it because there are some matters at which I should like to look, including some of the more positive issues that we shall want to accept.
I should like to remind the Minister of an outstanding manifesto pledge on the pensioners' earnings rule. There was many years ago a manifesto pledge to abolish the earnings rule. How much further forward have we reached with that manifesto pledge, which must be nearly 20 years old now? I note that on the earnings rule there is still no change.
Secondly, I imagine that we shall be embarking on a fairly long debate later this afternoon on housing benefit, so I do not need to say too much about that except to ask the Minister whether he can tell us what adjustments have been made to the tapers to which the housing benefits apply. As well as answering that, could he perhaps enlarge on the community charge once and for all payment? I was under the impression that the community charge would last for ever. What is this point about once and for all? I should be quite happy if he said it was to be on a once and for all basis. Can he enlarge on that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there will be the normal annual up-rating order, and that as usual will be in the form of a debate. On housing benefit tapers there is no change.
While we regard it as important to encourage pensioners to maintain contact with the labour market after minimum pension age, we cannot accept abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule as a priority in the context of the many other competing demands on social security spending. We are talking as usual and as always of a retirement pension. Therefore there must be a test of retirement, and £75 a week is that test.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question on the disability allowance, but will he clarify a matter regarding compensation for the poll tax as he passed over it rather quickly? Will compensation for income support for the poll tax be based on average liability for the population as a whole or, as the Prime Minister pledged, on the average liability of those on income support? The Minister will be aware that it has been calculated that the liability to poll tax of claimants on income support could be 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. higher than the figure which is based on the national average.
When the statutory instrument on disability is laid before the House, will there be an attempt to deal with the ludicrous anomaly that has arisen? The disabled were promised that the loss of the special benefit additions which were abolished in the Act, would not, because of transitional protection, result in any reduction in income. But this is not happening. Rises in interest rates automatically increase the income support housing allowance and then that goes towards paying the increase in the mortgage. It decreases under transitional protection. The extra payment has to go in mortgage payments and that will go up and down with increases in the rates, but the loss of the transitional addition is permanent. This rule results in the ludicrous situation that benefit entitlement goes down as the mortgage interest rate goes up.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that after 35 minutes I should answer the detailed point of the noble Lord's last question. However, I shall try to explain the once-and-for-all amount of community charge. The point of incorporating that in the Statement is that it is a new charge and therefore there must be a new benefit. Following normal procedures, when it occurs it will be rolled into income support and in future up-rated by whatever income support is up-rated.
It may be helpful if I repeat the fact that the rates are £1·15 for single people under the age of 25 and therefore £2·30 for couples. For people over the age of 25 the rate is £1·30—the amount which they are now receiving in respect of rates.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene I should like to point out that, by accepting the report of the Procedure Committee, the House has decided to confine questions on Statements to 20 minutes after the Statement has been made. We have now reached 36 minutes and we have a heavy day ahead of us. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, puts his question and that we then move on to the next business.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have a simple factual question. Can the Minister tell the House how much it would have cost in total to have up-rated child benefit in line with the full indexing? How much was added to family income support? Am I right in saying that only a fraction was added?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot find the figure at this moment. However, the answer that the noble Lord would expect is the true answer: it is considerably more.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord —
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on a point of order—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter for the House. I felt it right to remind the House that it agreed to accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee to spend 20 minutes on questions following a Statement. The matter will arise again when the order is laid. I think that it is a question for the House now to decide whether, after 38 minutes, it has had enough.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made but I should like to say briefly—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am putting the matter to the House. If the noble Lord continues and finds that the House does not want him to do so, then we are in difficulty. I beg the noble Lord to bear in mind the fact that we have a long day ahead of us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in deference to the noble Lord I shall not continue but I shall write to him.

Housing Bill
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 115 [Repairing obligations in short leases]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 86, line 3, leave out ("this Act comes into force") and insert ("the commencement of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 86, line 4, leave out ("this Act comes into force") and insert ("the commencement of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 206:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 shall have effect subject to the amendments in Schedule (Amendments of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987) to this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 206 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 208, 236, 245, 249 and 250. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which is amended by this new clause and schedule, enacted the recommendations of the Nugee Committee on the management of privately owned blocks of flats. It contains a battery of new rights for tenants of private flats and also strengthens the rights of tenants of other dwellings. These amendments, which result from discussions my department has had with the Law Society and, in part, from suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine who raised this issue at Committee stage and to whom I should like to express my gratitude, make some improvements to that Act.
These improvements are of two kinds. First, the definition of the tenants who can use certain of the rights in the Act is widened and simplified. In our efforts to exclude intermediate landlords from using the rights of first refusal and compulsory purchase and being able to vary defective leases we had adopted a definition of qualifying tenants which, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine subsequently pointed out, left out many tenants whose leases happened to include not only a flat but also the roof, walls, foundations or common parts of the building. The new schedule corrects that.
Secondly, the schedule clarifies the definition of disposals which are exempt from the right of first refusal in Part I of the Act. We had always intended that the mere grant by the landlord of a mortgage should not be a disposal attracting the right of first refusal but that a disposal by a mortgagee in possession should be. Doubt has been cast on whether the Act actually achieves this and we therefore propose to make these points clear. These are worthwhile amendments.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, subject to two questions in relation to Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and an amendment contained in the package, I should like to thank the Minister for these useful amendments to the Act. They deal with a point that I raised in Committee and with other points which appeared to be causing problems.
The reservation I have relates to the way in which Part IV of the 1987 Act is dealt with, concerning defective long leases so drafted that, as between landlord and tenant, they make the management of the building more difficult than it need otherwise be. Although there are similarities in the treatment of Parts I, II and IV of the Bill in that leases with common parts were excluded, there are basic differences between the first and the third parts and the fourth.
The first and third parts of the Bill are intended to provide benefit for tenants. That applies to landlords when they come to sell their interests and when they persistently refuse to carry out repairs. Part IV

1727
operates somewhat differently. It provides that applications to vary long leases may be made by landlords against tenants, by tenants against landlords and, in effect, by tenants against tenants. My noble friend will know that my opinion of the provisions in the lease about variation of defective leases is that the Act contains sections which are ill thought out and likely to prove arbitrary in operation. They also operate to an unacceptable extent in favour of landlords.
I am not arguing that matter today, but I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, if it is desirable for leases to be varied, why is it necessary that any leases should be excluded on the grounds that, under the lease, the tenant owns more than two flats? It appears that there is no reason in principle or practice why a landlord should not be able to apply to vary the leases or why the tenant should not be entitled to apply to vary them.
The second question deals specifically with what is intended to be the new subsection (7) of Section 35 of the 1987 Act. That subsection will provide that if a tenant of a flat with a long lease contained in a particular building is, by virtue of that lease and one or other more long leases of flats, also a tenant of two other flats contained in the same building, he will not be able to take advantage of Part IV and apply to have those leases varied if he feels that they are not effective.
That is all very well. However, if I read the Bill as amended by the schedule correctly, that leaves that tenant in a very vulnerable position because he cannot apply to vary his leases but the landlord and indeed other tenants may apply against him to have his lease varied. It seems to me that there are points that should be further considered. If my noble friend is not able to answer me now perhaps he may be able to reply to me before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness has been so splendid in dealing with the hundreds of amendments to this Bill in Committee and on Report that I am very reluctant to make the points which I am about to make; more especially as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, with all his professional expertise has revealed that he more or less understands this new schedule.
The new schedule contains a mass of textual amendments of previous legislation; that is to say, of an Act of Parliament passed only last year. They are brought in at this late stage when it is difficult to understand them without several hours of cross-referencing. Indeed, I do not know how long it took my noble friend Lord Coleraine to do so. There is no explanatory memorandum. That passed out of our ken long since. Notes on Clauses would not help because by then it had not been embodied in Notes on Clauses. I believe that it would have been of great assistance to your Lordships and would be of assistance to those who have to consider scores of amendments in another place if a simple explanatory memorandum had been circulated with this amendment and perhaps with other amendments of great complexity.
1728
I concentrated as hard as my mind would enable me to on the rapid explanation which my noble friend Lord Caithness gave, but I have to confess—and it is no doubt my failure—that he speaks faster than my mind registers. I believe that this is a classic example. We are trying to legislate in such a vast amount of detail. Much of it could be done by clearly stating the intention of Parliament and leaving the details of fulfilment to be carried out by statutory instruments—or even, let us dare, sometimes to leave it to the wisdom of the courts.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, pursuant to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton said, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl if an approach has been made to the editors of the statues in force to ensure that the principal Act as amended here is rapidly reprinted as amended. Indeed, that goes for all the other many amendments made by this Bill.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right when he said that my noble friend Lord Coleraine understands this part of the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is a complicated area. Perhaps my noble friend will permit me to study his points with care and discuss the matter with him between now and another stage.
I fully sympathise with what my noble friend Lord Renton said. If any of your Lordships require further elucidation of amendments, my department will always be able to help. When tabling an amendment the difficulty is how to get the explanatory note across. I have tried to keep both the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and Lord Ross of Newport, informed of the purport of government amendments that have been tabled. I believe that it would be very difficult to do that for all your Lordships. However, perhaps if a way could be devised it would certainly help me to have that explanation in your Lordships' hands. I know that my noble friend appreciates that if such a system could be devised, I should be happy to take it further.
I think that I have heard this from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale before as regards the Criminal Justice Bill. He taunted me then and said that we must reprint the existing Acts as quickly as possible. Of course I shall draw the noble and learned Lord's concern to those responsible for the printing. I am sure that they would wish to do that as expeditiously as possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 207:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause:
("Certain tenancies excluded from debtor's estate Scotland.
.—(1) In section 31 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting of debtor's estate at date of sequestration) in subsection (8) after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words", subject to subsection (9) below,".
(2) After the said subsection (8) there shall be added the following subsections—
"(9) Subject to subsection (10) below, the "whole of the debtor" does not include any interest of the debtor as tenant under any of the following tenancies—

1729

(a) a tenancy which is an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, or

(b) a protected tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 in respect of which, by virtue of any provision of Part VIII of that Act, no premium can lawfully be required as a condition of the assignation, or

(c) a secure tenancy within the meaning of Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

(10) On the date on which the permanent trustee serves notice to that effect on the debtor, the interest of this debtor as tenant under any of the tenancies referred to in subsection (9) above shall form part of his estate and vest in the permanent trustee as if it had vested in him under section 32(6) of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage I moved amendments intended to exclude tenancies from the estates of those who were bankrupt or in debt. With the assistance of the Government, those amendments found favour with the Committee. This amendment and Amendments Nos. 235, 238, 239, 240 and 253 extend the principle, to which the Committee agreed to the law of Scotland. I believe that they are strictly consequential on the amendments already agreed to. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for moving these amendments to which I am happy to give the Government's support. As the noble Lord said, they have the same effect in Scotland as amendments moved at Committee stage for England by the noble Lord, namely, to ensure that a tenant who becomes bankrupt does not lose his tenancy because of that unfortunate circumstance where the tenancy is of no value to the trustee.
Perhaps I could also speak to government Amendment No. 253 which simply amends the extent provisions in Clause 135 so as to ensure that these amendments moved by the noble Lord actually apply to Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 208:
Before Schedule 13, insert the following new schedule:
("AMENDMENTS OF LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987
1. In Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (tenants' rights of first refusal), in section 2 (landlords for the purposes of Part I), in subsection (1) after "(2)" there shall be inserted "and section 4(1A)".
2.—(1) In section 3 of that Act (qualifying tenants), in subsection (1) (paragraphs (a) to (c) of which exclude certain tenants) the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (c) shall be omitted and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added "or
(d) an assured tenancy or assured agricultural occupancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section (which excludes persons having interests going beyond a particular flat), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the words "by virtue of one or more tenancies none of which falls within paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1), he is the tenant not only of the flat in question but also of at least two other flats contained in those premises"; and in subsection (3) of that section for "(2)(b)" there shall be substituted "(2)".
3.—(1) In section 4 of that Act (relevant disposals) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection
"(1A) Where an estate or interest of the landlord has been mortgaged, the reference in subsection (1) above to the disposal of an estate or interest by the landlord includes a reference to its disposal by the mortgagee in exercise of a power of sale or leasing, whether or not the disposal is made in the name of the landlord; and, in relation to such a proposed disposal by the
1730
mortgagee, any reference in the following provisions of this Part to the landlord shall be construed as a reference to the mortgagee."
(2) In subsection (2) of that section, in paragraph (a), at the end of sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted "or", sub-paragraph (ii) shall be omitted and at the end of that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(aa) a disposal consisting of the creation of an estate or interest by way of security for a loan".
4.—(1) In Part III of that Act (compulsory acquisition by tenants of their landlord's interest), in section 26 (qualifying tenants), in subsection (2) (which excludes persons having interests going beyond a particular flat) for the words following "if' there shall be substituted "by virtue of one or more long leases none of which constitutes a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies, he is the tenant not only of the flat in question but also of at least two other flats contained in those premises".
(2) At the end of the said section 26 there shall be added the following subsection—
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) any tenant of a flat contained in the premises in question who is a body corporate shall be treated as the tenant of any other flat so contained and let to an associated company, as defined in section 20(1)."
5. In Part IV of that Act (variation of leases), for subsections (6) and (7) of section 35 (which make provision about long leases) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(6) For the purposes of this Part a long lease shall not be regarded as a long lease of a flat if—

(a) the demised premises consist of or include three or more flats contained in the same building; or

(b) the lease constitutes a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies.

(7) Without prejudice to subsection (6), an application under this Part may not be made by a person who is a tenant under a long lease of a flat contained in a particular building if, by virtue of that lease and one or more other long leases of flats, he is also a tenant of at least two other flats contained in the same building.
(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7), any tenant of a flat contained in the building in question who is a body corporate shall be treated as the tenant of any other flat so contained and let under a long lease to an associated company, as defined in section 20(1)."
6. In section 40 (application for variation of insurance provisions of lease of dwelling other than a flat) for subsection (4) (which makes provision about long leases) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) For the purpose of this section, a long lease shall not be regarded as a long lease of a dwelling if—

(a) the demised premises consist of three or more dwellings; or

(b) the lease constitutes a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies.

(4A) Without prejudice to subsection (4), an application under subsection (1) may not be made by a person who is a tenant under a long lease of a dwelling if, by virtue of that lease and one or more other long leases of dwellings, he is also a tenant from the same landlord of at least two other dwellings.
(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), any tenant of a dwelling who is a body corporate shall be treated as a tenant of any other dwelling held from the same landlord which is let under a long lease to an associated company, as defined in section 20(1)."
7. In Part VII of that Act (general) in section 58 (exempt landlords), in subsection (I) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(ca) a housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Rent officers: additional functions relating to housing benefit etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 87, line 28, leave out from ("to") to end of line 29 and insert
("criteria drawn up after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to controversy. Here we are dealing with Clause 118 which purports to be concerned with the additional functions of rent officers relating to housing benefit. In fact, Clause 118 is concerned with the credibility of the Government's undertaking to up-grade housing benefit in line with the inevitable increases in rents which those who at present are in receipt of housing benefit will be paying after the passage of the Bill.
When we dealt with this matter in Committee and indeed in the debate at Second Reading, we asked for a more flexible system of setting maximum rent levels and we severely criticised the proposals in Clause 118 whereby the appropriate maximum housing benefit might be limited by reference to determinations made by rent officers in exercise of functions conferred on them under this section of this Act.
In replying, the Minister made a number of points of which I wish to refer particularly to two because one is our justification for returning to this matter at this stage, quite apart from the fact that this is a very different amendment from that which we tabled in Committee.
The Minister paid great attention in his reply in Committee to the problem of what he called the Mayfair case—someone living in a penthouse flat in Mayfair for which the rent obviously would be far above that normally considered to be the proper rent for someone on housing benefit. He suggested that such a case would be so serious as to make it necessary to have the proposals at present in the Bill. We said to the Minister that surely the Bill could be drafted in such a way as to deal with the Mayfair case without abandoning the principle that those who have to pay higher rent because of the passage of the Bill, and who are receiving housing benefit, ought to have that benefit recovered and that the local authority who pays the benefit should be compensated for the extra expenditure involved, but we did not receive an adequate answer.
Therefore, we should like to have an answer from the Minister on that point. Is there not a way of dealing with the Mayfair case without the more general proposals contained in the Bill?
The second observation made by the Minister on a number of occasions during the Committee Sitting on 11 th October—I quote from col. 742—was that it was all right because,
"they are being fully examined at present in the detailed discussions which are taking place between the Department of Social Security and the local authority associations."
I have seen the note of the rent officers' sub-group of the housing benefit standing committee which was set up between the Department of Social Security, with a representative from the Department of the Environment, and all the local authority associations; including the Association of District Councils which is under Conservative control.
I understand that the next meeting of the committee is on 3rd November and the current situation is that the local authority associations are expressing very grave opposition, in principle, to the proposals in the Bill. They are asking for a number of
1732
ministerial decisions which must be made before the administration of this part of the Bill can reasonably be determined. The note states:
"The local authority associations … had fundamental reservations about the Government's proposed new role for rent officers … The proposal that local authorities should have discretion to pay benefit above the level set for subsidy purposes by rent officers could leave local authorities in the moral and financial dilemma of having to choose between meeting the extra benefit cost or having to accommodate a homeless family both of which would be at community charge or ratepayers' expense. The LAAs considered it was unreasonable to expect local authorities to have to act as a safety valve under the proposed arrangements without receiving any financial assistance.
The LAAs also objected in principle to the proposal that subsidy and benefit should be restricted where the rent officer assessed accommodation as being unreasonably large or expensive without reference to the claimant's particular needs … However, without prejudice to their objections in principle and on the basis that these would be put to Ministers, the LAAs agreed to discuss the proposed operational procedures for unreasonably large accommodation."
If the note is to be believed, this matter presumably has been put to Ministers and it should be possible for the Minister to reply to the key issues identified in the report on which no final decisions have yet been taken and which Ministers will need to consider. These are:
"a. the LAA's suggestion that rent officer's assessments should relate to benefit rather than subsidy;
b. the LAA's suggestion that the rent officers should take into account claimants' circumstances when considering whether accommodation is unreasonably large."
By that obviously we mean specifically the case of elderly claimants who live in a house in which they have probably lived all their lives but where the children have left home. It would be unreasonable to expect them to move unless there was really suitable alternative accommodation—not a squeezed suitability—and they were willing and able to move to that alternative accommodation.
"c.the LAA's suggestion that subsidy should be paid in full where a rent cannot be restricted under the terms of regulation 11.
Regulation 11 concerns unreasonably large accommodation.
"d.the LAA's suggestion that the proposals to restrict subsidy and benefit where accommodation is unreasonably large or expensive respectively, should not apply to claimants who had lived in the accommodation for many years."
That reinforces the point I made. The local authority associations clearly think that if the matter is to be administered at all and if it is to provide justice for claimants as well as have administrative feasibility, these questions must be answered by Ministers.
I understand that the questions are before Ministers and it is the responsibility of this House to obtain the best answers it can. Unless they can be satisfactorily answered, and unless Ministers can at least give an indication of the way in which their minds are working, and the efforts they are making to meet those points raised by the local authorities, it would be irresponsible of us to give the Secretary of State the powers that he seeks and to put the determination of reasonable rent on to the rent officers in the manner proposed in this clause.
We are, after all, speaking about taking back to central government powers which have been available to local authorities only since 1st April this year. They are not an old and failed provision. These are powers which the Government themselves

1733
introduced hardly six months ago and there is no evidence that the existing provisions are unsatisfactory. Is there not a contradiction between the Government's desire to stimulate the private rented market by allowing higher rents and what is in fact a back door method of rent control? The Government are saying that they are attempting to keep rents down by ensuring that housing benefit will not be paid for the actual rents.
Our amendment does not go anything like so far as Amendment No. 144 which was tabled in Committee. All we say here is that the Secretary of State should be enabled to specify the criteria which should be drawn up to deal with the problem after consultation with the relevant bodies. We are not saying that the rent stop should be completely outlawed. If, after consultation, it appeared to the Secretary of State that the proper figure was the market rent, he could, under this amendment, say so. We are being much more accommodating to the Government than we were able to be in Committee.
However, the problem behind this amendment and Amendment No. 208C, in particular, still remains. The Bill will raise rents for those people most in need—the elderly, disabled, the out-of-work and those on housing benefit. The Bill as drafted does not secure that housing benefit will rise to meet the actual rent which people have to pay. It does not maintain an adequate balance between the needs of payment and the proper needs of controlled public expenditure, which we have recognised all along. It does not deal with the problem that local authorities who seek to carry out their social obligations to people living in their areas may find themselves financially disadvantaged because Government grant will be taken away from them. It is for those reasons that we feel it necessary to have these amendments and to urge them, with all the power at our command, on the Government and on the House. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I must support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I too have seen this document. It is a lengthy one, and honestly I fell asleep reading it, but it certainly caused me concern. There is a great deal of concern among local government officers and rent officers as to just how this is going to pan out.
This Act, as it will become, will succeed only if housing benefit is seen to be generous. If there are great problems over who is to make up the shortfall beyond what housing benefit is decreed to be fair by the rent officer, or if it is left a total blank whether it is to be made up by the local authorities and that is not satisfactorily resolved, I can see real trouble ahead.
I hope that we shall hear from the Minister an update of the situation. We need a great deal more assurance before we should pass these clauses on the nod. It is a minor amendment asking for criteria to be agreed with various bodies beforehand. That is what it says, although I think perhaps there is a bit more to come. The kernel of the Bill, if it is to work, is that
1734
there has to be some latitude between the role of the local government and the rent officers; otherwise I see trouble ahead.
rd Stallardy Lords, I shall be as brief as I can. I should like to support these amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 208C. We have all read the excellent, well-argued and reasoned analysis by the organisations closest to the problems on the ground. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that the outcome of this Bill as it stands will he massive increases for the tenants, especially the old and people on lower incomes, despite assurances given by the noble Earl. I recall mentioning this at Second Reading.
Assurances have been given right the way through that these things would not happen, but I was convinced then and am even more convinced now that the powers they have taken under Clauses 6 and 117 will in fact result in huge increases. Already I have met hundreds of people in these circumstances who are worried sick about the possibilities and probabilities of what will happen to them in the event of huge increases.
One example that came to me was from a lady in Bristol. She had taken over her parents' home when the parents died. She is now on an assured tenancy. She has a complex and densely-worded legal contract with a property company which has recently taken over the house. She is virtually in the circumstances that we are discussing. Embedded in this contract is a sub-clause that is a mechanism for increasing the rent on a yearly basis.
The rent has been increased from the parents' old registered rent of £22·50 to a new rent of £65, and already she is finding it difficult to cope. She managed to get a part-time job in a local shop, having been unsuccessful in trying to get a job in her own line of secretarial work. She could not get that work because of her age. She could not stop the rent going up so she applied for housing benefit. Her claim has been referred to the rent officer. As I understand it, all claims will be referred to the rent officer under the new procedure. He assessed a reasonable rent for the house as £65.
He also decided however that she lived in a house which was too big for a single person, although she has no alternative and no reasonable alternative has been, or will be, made available. She is stuck in this house that he now says is too large for her. For all the reasons that we know, that can happen, and people can be trapped in those circumstances. Consequently the maximum subsidy allowed to the local authority is £35, and she is then left to find £30 out of her own pocket to make it up to the £65. We do not have to be geniuses to work out that that is almost impossible. That is the kind of circumstance that could, and will, happen to thousands of people.
It is already worrying people. General practitioners are worried about the effect on their patients because patients are becoming distressed over what can happen to their rents, and even to the roof over their head. We can all see an increase in psychiatric problems if tendencies that we notice now continue along these lines.

1735
I am speaking particularly to Amendment No. 208C, where the reasonable rent fixed by the rent officer should be taken as the available rent for housing subsidy. I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider what he has said, or what has been said in Committee and hitherto, and have another look at the problem that will confront thousands of people faced with the outcome of the Government's overzealous attempt to free the market and to allow landlords to increase rents willy-nilly.
I think it was the Housing Institute that said that at the moment the Bill tips the balance too far in the direction of reducing expenditure and away from meeting the legitimate needs of those people we have mentioned and who are covered by these amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something constructive on Amendment No. 208C.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench. We also have to consider how it reflects upon the local authority. Already local authorities are having new claimants put on housing benefit for when boarders are being transferred from next April. That is another category of people they have to start dealing with.
Then from September and October those local authorities that have polytechnics and universities in their areas will have their students also coming onto housing benefit. We do not yet know what the Government are going to do regarding transfers from hostels. That decision has not yet been made. In view of all those extra burdens being placed on local authorities when the rent officer is not going to pay the full amount, the concessionary benefits that a local authority will have to decide on will be more numerous than they are at the present moment.
We have to recognise as well that under the new assured-tenancy regime there will be only a limited right to have a rent looked at by applying to the rent assessment committee. That will only be when the landlord proposes a rent increase. When the rent officer fixes the rent, that is the rent. At the present moment there is no appeal mechanism in the Bill under which the tenant can say that it is an unfair rent. At the present moment you can appeal to the rent officer for a fair rent. That is a right that will be lost to the tenant. There is no appeal to the rent assessment committee, which would look at each individual case separately.
We have given this great power to the rent officer. We have given him the power to increase the rent. The Government have given him that power, but they have also restricted the power to allocate enough money to the local authorities to pay the rent that the rent officer is going to fix. That will be a serious problem for local authorities. At the present moment a local authority has certain discretions that it can exercise, but those discretions might have to be limited if more people make application.
As my noble friend said from the Front Bench, if a local authority has to make a decision as to whether to pay the extra over and above what is eligible under
1736
housing benefit, does that prevent the local authority having to rehouse him? That is a difficult decision that the local authority has to make. If the landlord decides to evict the tenant after three months' arrears, which is made easier in the Bill, is it for the local authority to say that it must protect the tenant from eviction because he cannot pay the rent as a consequence of not earning enough? This would be a serious situation for the local authority to face.
I wish to ask the Minister about properties in which war widows and war pensioners live in the case where the property is too large for personal use or the housing benefit is not sufficient to pay the higher rent. War widows and war pensioners, I am given to understand, are in a separate category from other tenants as regards allowable discretionary payments. I hope that the Minister can comment. I have received several heartrending letters from war widows asking whether they will suffer under the Bill. The writers assure me they are in a separate category from other tenants.
The real concern is that, by exercising their considerable powers, rent officers will be able to ensure that the local authority does not pay the benefits. Rent officers will put up the rent, as the Government want, but will ensure that insufficient housing benefit is granted to cover it. It will be for the local authority to say to the tenant, "We are very sorry, there is nothing else that we can do for you". Thus the tenant will feel aggrieved with the local authority. Provision should be made in the Bill—I hope that the Minister will consider this seriously—for an independent appeal body that could reconsider the case of any tenant who feels aggrieved about the rent officer's decision.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as we have consistently made clear, housing benefit will continue to be available to those who need help with their reasonable housing costs. That will of course include private tenants in need of assistance in paying rents at the level determined by the free market. I understand noble Lords' concern on the matter, and I wish to make abundantly clear that the Government are fully committed to paying housing benefit up to the level of rents determined by the free market. The essential purpose of the rent officer's function is to ensure that housing benefit subsidy is not used to support rents that are above market level.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is no part of the housing benefit system to allow claimants to occupy at public expense housing of a standard that the majority of people could not reasonably expect to afford out of their own pockets. The Government are committed to preventing such abuses. We have therefore said that we shall in due course impose limits on housing benefit—that means benefit itself, not just the subsidy we pay to local authorities—in any case where a claimant is living in property which is unreasonably large or at the top end of the market in the area concerned. We intend that such a restriction should come into effect once adequate evidence on open market rents is available. We have also said that we shall introduce further limits on housing benefit should the circumstances warrant it.

1737
Accordingly, Clause 118(4) provides for the making of regulations under the Social Security Act 1986 limiting benefit by reference to the determinations made by rent officers. The amendment would replace this with a far more open-ended provision that refers merely to criteria drawn up in consultation with such organisations as appear to be concerned. That, I am afraid, would be quite inconsistent with what we seek to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, alleged that local authorities acquired the power to restrict benefit only in April. That is not so. The Secretary of State already has power under the Social Security Act 1986 to place limits on housing benefit. All that Clause 118(4) does is to enable him to set such limits by reference to the determinations of rent officers. There is no great issue of principle at stake here, as the noble Lord suggested when speaking to Amendment No. 208A.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised some important points which with respect I think refer mainly to Amendment No. 208C. Perhaps they could be dealt with later in the discussion on Amendment No. 208C.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, stated that there was to be no appeal against the rent officer's decision on market rents for housing benefit subsidy purposes. As I explained in Committee, in the regulations to be made under Clause 118 we propose to provide for a right of appeal to an independent group of senior rent officers that the local authority can use. The claimant will of course have a right of appeal to the existing housing benefit review procedures established by the local authority, which can in turn invoke the appeal mechanism that I described just now.
The noble Baroness raised a very important point about war widows and pensioners. There is a special rent allowance payable for war widows under the war pensions legislation. We have no plans to change this. I think that I am right in saying—this is much more a matter for my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—that the first £15 of income is disregarded for housing benefit purposes for war pensioners and war widows.
There will of course be consultations with interested parties before any restrictions on benefit are brought into effect. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is under a statutory obligation to consult the local authority associations on any proposed regulations under the Social Security Act. Both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, said that they had seen some minutes of a recent meeting. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that certain demands had been made by various parties on Ministers. We take that very seriously. I assure the House that we shall fully consider and examine in considerable detail the requests and demands made upon us by those taking part in the consultations.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, raised specifically the question of the elderly. This will come up under Amendment No. 208B. It is of course important, and we shall therefore give it the detailed
1738
consideration that it deserves. We are firmly committed to the enabling provision included here that will allow us to relate the benefit restrictions to the decisions of rent officers. Therefore, we cannot agree the alternative formula that the noble Lord proposes.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I did not understand what the Minister said in regard to appeals. He seemed to say—I may be wrong—that the local authority will be able to appeal to some senior rent officers. I want to know what the tenant can do. One has to accept that the tenant has a certain responsibility and should be able to appeal. I do not mind if this goes to a second higher place for appeal.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the tenant can appeal to that same group too.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The noble Earl's adviser is saying no.
The Earl of Caithness: That is why I said, "as I understand it"!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was an interesting speech by the Minister which we shall have to study carefully. I was especially interested to hear him say that benefit would be set at the level determined by the free market and that the only restriction would be that it would not be paid on rents above the market level. Is the noble Earl proposing to table amendments at Third Reading to put that on the face of the Bill, because that is not what the Bill says at the moment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. I misled her and I shall correct the position as soon as possble.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, no, I was making the position absolutely clear. We do not believe that it needs an amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a profound conflict between those words, which if I thought they were going to be law rather than a ministerial statement I would welcome very much, and what the Bill actually says. I concede that these discretionary powers have existed for some time. We already have powers for local authorities to restrict the amount of rent that counts for housing benefit purposes when it is unreasonable. Local authorities have those powers, and it has not been suggested that their extension in April 1988 has worked in any way inadequately.
What is now happening is that the powers are being taken away from the local authorities and put in the hands of rent officers—in effect, in the hands of central government—in accordance with the functions conferred under this clause of the Bill. There is no reference in the Bill to market rents or rent levels determined by the market. It does not say that. What we need from the Government is not just a statement of the kind made by the Minister this afternoon but for the Bill to say clearly and category-

1739
cally that, just because rents are going up as a result of the Bill, no single person at present on housing benefit, will be worse off as a result of his housing benefit not rising enough to compensate him for the higher rent, and no single local authority paying benefit should be forced to charge its ratepayers or community charge payers more because the Government are not giving enough money to compensate it. That is the issue. If the Minister will give me those two assurances I shall with pleasure withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to read very carefully what the noble Lord said. He asked for two assurances on words that he has just put to me. I think it would be fair of him to allow me to read what he said in the Official Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respect what the Minister says. It does not go very well with what he said a moment ago about not proposing to put down amendments at Third Reading, but he said, first, something new about market rents which has never been said before so far as I know during the passage of the Bill, either here or in another place. He also said that he will listen to our demand that nobody in need should suffer as a result of the Bill. If he can come back at Third Reading with a provision to enshrine that, noble Lords on this side of the House, those who are responsible for administering housing benefit and above all those who are in need of housing benefit will be profoundly grateful. On the basis of what the Minister said, the proper course is for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for the reasons I have given, I shall not move Amendment No. 208B.
[Amendment No. 208B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 208C:
Page 87, line 42, at end insert—
("(8) At the end of section 21(6) of the Social Security Act 1986 (regulations prescribing maximum family credit and maximum housing benefit) there shall be added—
"and regulations shall prescribe that in determining the rent for housing benefit purposes the authority shall treat the rent officer's decision as to reasonable rent under section 118 of the Housing Act 1988 as the eligible rent less any deductions specified elsewhere in regulations." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move Amendment No. 208C, which was moved and withdrawn at Committee stage, because I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to give further consideration to something that he said in Committee on 11th October. The amendment is concerned with the local authority's discretion to pay housing benefit at below the rent settled by the rent officer. If local authorities for whatever reason pay housing benefit at a rent lower than that settled by the rent officer, some people on housing benefit will be worse off as a result of the Bill. Therefore my original
1740
questions, which the Minister has just agreed to consider, would be even more forceful than they are now.
On that occasion the Minister said:
"special consideration will arise in a case where the claimant is occupying accommodation which is at the top end of the market even though the rent for that property may be perfectly reasonable."—[Official Report, 11/10/88; col. 755.]
I assume the example would be the widow in a family home. He said that the matter was under further consideration. Although he did not propose a solution, I thought it was worth moving the amendment in order to give the Minister an opportunity to report any progress in the consideration of the matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord, I hope the House will allow me to put clearly on the record the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. I was half right. The claimant has a right of appeal, but not to the body to which I thought he had a right of appeal. He has a right of appeal to the housing benefit review procedure established by the local authority under social security legislation. It is the local authority that can invoke an appeal, if it chooses, to the independent group of rent officers which I mentioned. I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear.
The noble Lord's amendment would provide that, where the rent officer has assessed a reasonable rent under the new procedure, the local authority would be required to treat that rent as the minimum eligible rent for housing benefit purposes. As I explained when a similar amendment was moved at Committee stage, so far as the great majority of cases are concerned, there is no need for such a provision. Once the rent officer has made an assessment of rent, the local authority will be free to pay housing benefit up to the level of that assessment in the knowledge that the award will attract full subsidy from central government. A local authority will therefore not normally have any grounds for basing the benefit calculation on a lower level of rent than that assessed by the rent officer.
However, we need to take account of the case in which a benefit claimant is living in accommodation which is at the top end of the market, even though the rent he is paying may be perfectly reasonable. As I have already explained, the Government's view is that people ought not to be living in such accommodation at public expense and we therefore propose, as soon as adequate market evidence is available, to introduce formal controls on benefit in such cases. Until that is done we intend to institute an informal arrangement under which the rent officer will notify the local authority of any case where a tenant claiming housing benefit is living in a property at the top of the market. The local authority will then consider whether to use its discretion to restrict benefit below the level of rent which the claimant is paying or which the rent officer has himself determined as reasonable for the property.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In so far as he

1741
is repeating what he said in Committee, he is not going as far as he did a few minutes ago in relation to Amendment No. 208A. He uses the words "normally" and "in rare circumstances". We are looking for a firm assurance that local authorities will not be allowed to make poor people poorer by paying housing benefit at a rate lower than that set by the rent officer. Will the Minister be good enough to go back to what he said on Amendment No. 208A? Will he assure us that, except in the sense of discretion which is already available to local authorities under existing legislation—I accept that there must be some discretion for local authorites—there will be no further discretion than already exists for tenants to receive housing benefit which is less than the rent which they must pay?
Lord Trafford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question for clarification purposes. As I understand it, he has really asked three questions in one. First, he is asking what happens in an average circumstance in an average house—not at the top end of the housing market, or anything like that—where a market rent is set by the rent officer which is the guideline for the issue of housing benefit by the local authority. I think that he made the point in regard to the previous amendment. I believe that the Minister stated in reply that one of the reasons for making the guideline was so that it would be quite impossible for an astronomical rent to be set and for astronomical housing benefit automatically to follow. I take it that in this particular instance he is not referring to that issue and that he appreciates the point.
When he talks about people being made poorer as a result of the discretion, this would not arise where the market rent was a guideline except in one circumstance; but that would not be at the poorest end of the market. It could arise, as I understand it under subsequent regulations, in a very high rent area way outside the normal level of the people who might apply to him. I shall give a ridiculous example: a rent of £500 a week for someone who is on £200 a week. It would appear that under such a situation huge amounts of housing benefit could be paid which would be totally out of proportion. Is he asking all three questions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is going back to the debate and the sidetracking of the central issues which, I am sorry to say, took place in Committee. None of us is saying that penthouses in Mayfair should be fully paid for by housing benefit; that is not the issue. But there are already adequate safeguards for local authorities to exercise their discretion in such cases. Some of them existed before April 1988 and some of them were strengthened in April 1988. With respect, I do not think that that is the essence of the argument.
What we are looking for are assurances that go further than the "normally", which the Minister used in his reply to the amendment, which assure us that local authorities will always pay—except in those peculiar circumstances—the rent set by the rent officer to housing benefit claimants, and that they will be reimbursed in full by the Government for what
1742
they pay. If we have such assurances, then we can withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has accused me of bringing something new before your Lordships and of changing my position since the Committee stage. I must repeat that there is nothing new in what I have said about paying benefit at market rates. Housing benefit subsidy will be payable up to market rent but certainly not beyond. There will of course be a subsidy order under the Social Security Act 1986 which will determine that provision. That is the reason why it cannot be put on the face of the Bill which is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wishes me to agree to
As regards the discretion of the local authority, that was clearly spelt out in the full answer which I have just given to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on Amendment No. 208A, I invited the Minister to give the House an assurance that no one in need would be poorer. He did not say that he could not give that assurance for this or that reason; he said that he would think about it. On that basis, I withdrew the amendment. He has given no such comfort in relation to this amendment. Amendment No. 208C is absolutely vital if we are to avoid a greater degree of poverty resulting from the Bill's provisions that local authorities should not be able to pay less than the rent set by the rent officer. We have not received the assurances we need and therefore it is necessary to take the opinion of the House.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 208C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grimond, L.

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ardwick, L.

Hooson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Broadbridge, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mais, L.

Diamond, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Ross of Newport, L.

1743

Russell, E.

Tordoff, L.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stallard, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aldington, L.

Iddlesleigh, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kitchener, E.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Lytton, E.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of West Green,

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caccia, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Orkney, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Rugby, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Somers, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stockton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gorell, L.

Swansea, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayter, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Weir, V.

Hives, L.

Westbury, L.

Holderness, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hooper, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 209:
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Housing Act 1985.
—(1) Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (Exceptions to the right to buy) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) Paragraphs 6 and 8 shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 209 perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 233A, 233B and 243B in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and Amendment No. 244 which follows on from Amendment No. 209.
The amendments deal with the right to buy for disabled people. My amendments are designed to
1744
remove the current discrimination against physically disabled people who occupy local authority housing. If your Lordships had before you the record of our proceedings in Committee you would see that my noble friend the Minister said:
"The Government remain anxious … that as many tenants as possible in the public sector should have the right to buy. People with disabilities are no exception to this".—[Official Report, 11/10/88: col. 780.]
Later in Committee my noble friend generously went on to say that he would bring in his own amendment, which he has with Amendment No. 243B, to remove paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985. My amendment removes paragraph 6 as well. I thank my noble friend for taking that action, and I take the opportunity to thank him for his courtesy in meeting me between the Committee stage and now and discussing the whole matter. As he can see, we are still not together on the matter.
If agreed to by the House, my noble friend's amendment would give the right to buy to disabled tenants who live in council housing that has been specially adapted for disabled people, either by giving an additional 11·5 square metres of space, which might be just a sun porch, which is common to many houses, or a downstairs lavatory combined with a bath or shower. Again, many old properties are improved, whether occupied by disabled people or able-bodied people, by having a downstairs bath and lavatory added. In most cases it is the only practical place to do it. One goes through the kitchen into the new extension where there are the modern amenities. The only important point is the final one, the addition of the lift for dwellings of more than one storey. That means that if one is living in a house, is involved in a motor accident and ends up in a wheel-chair, and one's house is adapted after one has been living there the relevant length of time, one will have the right to buy.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act deals with property that was designed and built specifically for disabled people, or converted from some other building, such as a barn—I do not know of many councils that have converted barns into council houses—to form a specially designed dwelling. If one had moved into one of those specially built dwellings some 20 years ago, after a similar accident with similar results and exactly the same disabilities, because the dwelling was purpose built the Government say that such a person will not have the right to buy. Those who have been possibly disabled the longest and who have lived in the same place for many years will not be allowed to buy. Those who become disabled through injury or disease and need their dwelling adapted for them will be allowed to buy. The Government have always prided themselves on being non-discriminatory. That is discrimination between disabled people and disabled people.
I want to take away the discrimination between disabled people and able-bodied people. There is an argument that the sale of specially designed or adapted accommodation reduces the amount of special accommodation available. Yes, it will, but to a very small extent. There are numerous instances of families with a disabled member where that member

1745
marries and moves away or dies and the family continues to live in the property. I have correspondence with me; I shall not read out all of it because we shall be here for hours. I have a letter talking about a flat specially designed for disabled people, occupied by the widow of a man who was in a wheelchair. She has been there for the last eight years; she will not move out. The local authority cannot get her out. That property has been lost to the disabled community temporarily until she dies.
There is also the fact that property specially designed for disabled people does not come up for letting very often because disabled people get used to a neighbourhood. They know where the shops are; they know where the dropped kerbs are; and the shopkeepers are helpful towards them. Those disabled people tend not to move. So property does not come up for letting as often as property that is available to able-bodied people.
In addition, the criteria for special dwellings can be very odd. I gave instances at the Committee stage but I shall not refer to the same letters. I have other examples. There are instances of disabled people in wheelchairs who are not allowed to buy their flat or bungalow which is exactly the same as, or similar to, that next door where the person is not disabled and where the property is sold to that tenant.
Modern standards of housing—local authority
housing required by the Housing Corporation — insist on wider doorways, wider ground floors where there is one floor only, a flat floor in passageways or hallways and a downstairs lavatory with a shower or bath. The same applies to housing association properties. The NHBC recommends the same for private developers, but so far they are not complying. I hope that the building regulations will be altered to enforce such requirements.
A tenant living in Bristol writes:
"In 1976 I did a straightforward council exchange. And the lady I swapped with was neither disabled nor a pensioner. She was a lonely widow who felt isolated and lonely up here, quite away from the shops and other facilities. My husband wanted a garden which the flat we were in did not have. In the early days of living here, I asked the council three times for a little help and was told that they could not do anything because it was not as if it is a special bungalow, or words to that effect. When we applied to buy, lo and behold it was a disabled person's bungalow. Local authorities are using the 1985 Act purely as an excuse not to sell."
Another letter is from a disabled couple, this time with the husband being severely disabled. The wife writes:
"In our case, the only practical advantage is level access and an integral garage to store our outdoor electric wheelchairs. Many houses have level access and a very large number have integral garages; they are nothing special. The council, on refusing to sell, had attributed many features to this bungalow that do not exist. For instance, the bathroom is stated to be larger than non-purpose bungalows surrounding ours, while in actual fact it has exactly the same dimensions, being just 67 inches wide, wall to wall, with a floor space of 37 inches from bath to the wall. The average wheelchair is 49 inches long, making it impossible for tenants to turn their wheelchairs around in the bathroom".
This means that if they go in forwards, they have to come out backwards, or vice versa. The letter talks about the kitchen and the larger floor areas. It states:
"The kitchen is 6 feet 11 inches wide, wall to wall, with a floor space of 40 inches wide, while in the so-called able-bodied persons' bungalows nearby, the kitchens are 8 feet 4 inches wide"—
1746
that is 1 foot 5 inches wider—
"and in the disabled bungalow it is not possible to turn the wheelchair round. The kitchen units are standard, so the disabled person has to park a wheelchair sideways to do any cooking—very awkward for husband and wife."
She goes on to say that the windows can only be opened from the standing position. Her husband who is unable to reach above his shoulders cannot turn on the lights and she has to stand up to do so from her wheelchair.
I could go on for a long time, but I think I have given sufficient examples of the need for disabled people to be able to buy their own properties. They are being discriminated against unreasonably, in my view. Local authorities are taking every excuse they can not to sell. I think that the argument that such specialised property is going out of the market is fallacious, as I have already said. I would agree that there is a need to build more. I do not deny that. But it does not mean that disabled people should not have the right to buy their properties. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may make a suggestion on procedure. I think this is one of those occasions where it would be very helpful if the Minister who has his own amendments were not only to speak earlier in the debate but were to have the leave of the House to reply before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if that is the wish of your Lordships then I shall be very happy to comply. The case for some change in the legislation relating to the right to buy dwellings which have been purpose-built or adapted by the landlord has been put most eloquently at Committee stage and again this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. All of us are concerned to see that those with disabilities enjoy the same rights and privileges as the able-bodied. The provisions we are discussing are not designed to exclude disabled people from the right to buy but rather to enable landlords to retain a stock of special housing suitable for disabled people. That was the basis on which the noble Viscount defeated the Government a few years ago.
Paragraphs 6 and 8 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act are about special housing, not special tenants. The tenant may not be a disabled person. The property may, for instance, have been let to a couple with a disabled child or other relative living with them. Equally, a disabled person may live in a house which does not fall within the criteria for exclusion from the right to buy. Nevertheless I fully understand the feeling of disabled tenants that the practical effect of the legislation is to deny them the opportunity, which other tenants of local authorities and housing associations have, to buy their homes.
Amendments Nos. 209 and 244 would remove the exclusion from the right to buy of dwellings which were built with features substantially different to ordinary dwellings covered by paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985, and dwellings which have been adapted by the landlord in certain specified ways covered by paragraph 8 of the same schedule. As I made clear in Committee, the Government see no case for the continuation of the

1747
exclusion of dwellings which have merely been adapted. That is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 233A and 243B to repeal paragraph 8.
Amendment No. 233B is a transitional provision to provide that the repeal shall have effect in relation to applications made before it comes into force where the landlord has not formally responded to the application by admitting or denying the right to buy.
I have great sympathy with what has been said about paragraph 6. I know from my postbag, and from letters sent to me by several noble Lords, that there are indeed problems with its operation. I do not however think that it would be right to deal with this difficulty by rushing into a repeal of paragraph 6, I said in Committee that I thought it was right to consult with those concerned—the local authorities, the housing association movement, people with disabilities and their organisations and others with relevant knowledge or experience—before taking such a step. I remain convinced that that is the right way forward. Let me make it absolutely clear that this is not because it is necessarily wrong to repeal paragraph 6. I should be delighted if in the light of the consultations we were able to conclude that purpose-built housing for the disabled could safely be brought within the right to buy. But we need to consider very carefully what the effects would be on the waiting lists for rented housing suitable for disabled people.
I shall go into some detail about how I propose that consultation should be carried out when we come on to the next amendment, Amendment No. 210. In view of the acceptance that I have been able to give, the tabling of amendments on the deletion of paragraph 8 and the reasons I have given why I think it would be wrong to delete paragraph 6 until at least we have time for consultation, I hope the House will think that is the right way to proceed.
6 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, when we look back on Hitler's regime in the war we can see that a group of people were singled out as different. They had to wear a star: they were Jews. They were discriminated against with disastrous results.
There is now a small section of people who are being discriminated against. They are the physically disabled people who live in council houses and wish to buy their houses. I wish to quote from one of the letters I have received. It is from a disabled lady who lives in Harrogate. It states:
"I live in a block of flats which were specially built for elderly and disabled people. As I qualify on both grounds I have tried, but without success, for the past three years to buy my flat, yet an identical flat above me has been sold by the council to a young, able-bodied, single parent with a son and a live-in male friend—all of them not disabled".
The letter continues:
"Is it fair that a disabled person like myself, having worked hard and saved sufficient money to buy my little home, despite having worn an artificial leg for 50 years, am denied the same right to buy as the able-bodied people who live above me?"
This lady earns her living and pays her taxes. I ask your Lordships where is the justice. All the people who have written to me are trying hard to live integrated, responsible lives in the community. They
1748
have worked and they have saved. They are seeking security in retirement, without having increasing rents hung round their necks. Should they not be given the same incentive as other council tenants?
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, spoke so clearly about other special groups who may have houses which cost a little more. In fact a four-bedroom house would cost far more than a small house suitable for a disabled person, yet the former houses can be sold. Again I ask where is the justice.
My noble kinsman the Minister has tried to do his best, but I think that is just not good enough. It might mean even more discrimination and even more muddle. Surely one wants a family that has so many extra expenses in its daily living, as disabled people have, to keep out of the courts. How can those people take on a local authority in a court? These people are not the affluent rich; they are council tenants trying to live independent, responsible lives on small incomes.
It seems that any incentive is being squashed, just because a disability is involved. That has caused and is causing unhappiness and frustration to the individuals involved. My noble kinsman said at a meeting we had with him that he would put out this matter for consultation. I see little point in that as the department has received letters from disabled people who wish to buy their homes. Local authorities can sell now if they wish. But they do not wish to sell to disabled people. They prefer the choice of discrimination and a static housing stock.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure there is not a Member of this House who does not agree with the principle of this amendment. But your Lordships will know that on this side of the House we have some difficulties with these amendments. In principle it is absolutely right that disabled people should not be discriminated against. We have all received many heartrending letters to that effect from disabled people who wish to buy their adapted or specially built houses. But the point has to be made that if an adapted house is sold and is not replaced, the stock of such houses is reduced. That then works to the disadvantage of the very large group of disabled people who can only afford to rent such housing. That group is much larger than those who wish to buy.
In Committee the Minister pointed out that there are some 40,000 such houses. There is a waiting list for them of 18,000 people. Forty thousand is only 10 per cent. of the requirement for such houses as calculated by the Department of the Environment in the 1970s. The department said then that there was a requirement for 460,000 such houses. Only 40,000 are available. The stock of houses to let would be reduced if the right to buy existed. And in any case the stock is only 10 per cent. of the requirement.
When the Minister replies, will he tell the House what plans the Government have to ensure that if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, Amendment No. 209, or the amendments standing in the Minister's name are passed, the stock of special housing to let will not be reduced. If he could give us such an assurance, we would have no problem with these amendments at all.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to support Amendments Nos. 209 and 244 most strongly. I am delighted to do so, as I was not able to he present in Committee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I have changed my mind since the passage of the 1985 Act through this House. Then I felt that the way to encourage local authorities to build more suitable accommodation for disabled people was by not allowing the existing stock to be bought and thereby diminished. However, I realised at the time that that discriminated against those people who wanted to buy their houses.
But councils do not seem to have been encouraged to build more suitable housing, and disabled people are being discriminated against to an extent that I never envisaged. There is great confusion about what makes a dwelling substantially different from an ordinary dwelling house, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, demonstrated so graphically both in Committee and again today.
I welcome very much indeed what the Minister has said. First of all, I welcome the amendments standing in his name, Amendments Nos. 243A and 243B, as a first step, but I believe that the adaptations in paragraph 8 are pretty minimal. If Amendment No. 209, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is not agreed to, I feel that Amendment No. 210 is absolutely essential, so that at least we can ensure that decisions on what constitutes a substantially different dwelling will not vary from place to place. But it would still mean that those disabled people whose houses fall the wrong side of the dividing line would be denied the right to buy. Can we really deny or allow the right to buy for the sake of a few square metres or a piece of equipment?
Disabled families, as the noble Lord said do not move house very often or very easily as there is so much hassle involved. If they are near accessible shops and an accessible job, they are much more likely to stay put than is the able-bodied family. Their houses are therefore not very rapidly available to new tenants. Furthermore, very few of these families will be in a position to afford to buy their houses, so we are talking about a very small number of people.
I welcome very much indeed what the Minister said in connection with Amendments Nos. 209 and 244. That gives me hope. However, in the meantime house prices will rise and some people who could afford to buy their houses now may well not be in a position to do so in a year or two when the Minister has held his consultations and the whole thing has been sorted out. We may deprive yet more people of the right to buy their own homes.
While I welcome what the Minister said, I would rather that we could agree the amendment now. I am now convinced that the only equitable solution for people with disabilities who want and can afford to buy their own homes is an unequivocal, unfettered right to buy.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I found it difficult to come to a decision about this amendment. It is one of those very few amendments which cut across party lines. I do not believe that this is a party issue. However, I find the government stance exceedingly
1750
difficult to understand. That is even more so in the light of my noble friend's statistics about waiting lists and houses available. That information might be compared with the position in relation to the able-bodied.
I believe the boast is that 1 million council flats have already been sold. There are well in excess of 1 million people waiting for flats and hundreds of thousands of homeless people. There are no qualms and there is no suggestion that because there are so many people waiting for flats and there is a shortage of homes that one ought to reconsider the policy of selling flats. That would have been a consistent stance, but having accepted that position for the able-bodied the Government cannot now say that a flat which has been adapted for the disabled—either marginally or more substantially—should not be sold because it would take one home out of the existing stock. That is not a consistent argument. It is discrimination and will be seen to be blatant discrimination.
It is for that reason, and because I am slightly biased as a result of my long-standing association with organisations for the disabled and because I understand the problems and the thinking behind the amendment, that I think the government stance will be seen as discrimination. I welcome the move towards ending at least some part of that discrimination as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I think it is a welcome sign when noble Lords on the Government Benches are prepared to come out against discrimination in whatever form. On that basis I am happy to support the noble Lord, and I hope that the Minister will have further thoughts about the amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I shall not delay the House long. I feel passionately about this issue. Both as chairman of a housing committee and in conjunction with voluntary organisations I have had a great deal of experience of trying to ensure that the disabled are treated in exactly the same way as able-bodied people. They are often very clever and extremely good at doing things but are simply hampered by some disablement. There are three or four noble Lords in this House who are disabled. They are very clever and do a marvellous job.
The idea that one can discriminate against disabled people who have lived in the same house for a number of years is unacceptable. Like the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I have received many letters from disabled people who have lived in their houses for many years and want to buy their homes.
There was a period before this present Government when local authorities were not encouraged to sell houses. It was thought that they should keep them. This Government, rightly I believe, have encouraged people to buy their homes. Why on earth should disabled people not be able to buy their houses too? I believe that is utterly wrong. It is a disgrace. I hope the Government will see that this particular wrong should be done away with in this Bill.
It can be done. I have done it myself as chairman of a housing committee in my own area. In those days

1751
we were not encouraged to sell houses, but we converted houses. Now that council tenants are able to buy their houses the disabled also want to buy because they have lived there for many years. I hope the Government will see that this amendment is accepted and that that disadvantage is removed.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I respect what the Minister said about this amendment and his attitude towards it, because he is a politician and I am not. But I should like to ask why it is that one has to wait and consult local authorities before doing something which is so eminently right. The local authorities' opinions may be right or they may be wrong, but surely we have the conviction to recognise that an amendment of this kind is eminently right.
I should also like to point out that there have been complaints that the proposal would take houses out of the general housing market. It would not do so. A house which has been converted for disabled people can perfectly well be used by able-bodied people subsequently if they wish. The proposal would not diminish the number of houses available.
I hope the Government will see that this is right and that they do not have to wait and consult local authorities before taking the necessary steps.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that we must not diminish the stock of houses which have been specially equipped, very expensively, for disabled people. Is there any way whereby a disabled person could buy a house and the local authority would have the right to buy it back when that person died, rather than it passing to his heirs who may be fully able-bodied? The local authority would therefore be able to take full advantage of the house.
There is no objection and there is every advantage in the existing disabled tenant continuing to live in the house, having bought it himself. We do not want to diminish the stock of houses and therefore if the local authority still has a waiting list of disabled people wanting houses which are specially equipped why should it not have the right to buy back the property when the disabled occupier dies?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will recall that during Committee stage I raised this very point. I see no reason why machinery could not be brought in to give the local authority the right to pre-emption. If that were the case I would support these amendments. However, if it is not even to receive consideration I have heard no arguments to change my mind about the 1985 Act. There is no doubt that the next generation of disabled people will find there are no houses available for them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Government are often accused of being uncaring and unthinking, particularly about the disadvantaged. I feel quite sure noble Lords opposite will believe that many of the allegations are quite unfair and unjustified. However, it is this kind of resistance to a
1752
perfectly reasonable suggestion which makes them eligible for criticism. They have the opportunity this afternoon to try to put that right by not opposing this amendment.
I perfectly understand the arguments of the Minister against the amendment. He wants to consult. With respect to the Minister, there has been ample time already for consultation. The time for talking is over and now is the time for action on behalf of disabled people. We have already heard from a number of speakers this afternoon about the small difference that would be made to the total housing stock for the disabled. In fact, the argument is about what reasonable people—ordinary people
the street—believe to be fair. I have asked some ordinary people in the street whether they believe that it is fair that in a society in which council tenants have the right to buy their property one should say to one and only one section of those tenants, "You may not buy because you are disabled". Invariably, in every case, the reply has been, "Of course it is wrong that one should discriminate". Indeed, before I left my house this morning I spoke to my wife, who is not a political animal as I am. She is an ordinary person and I often consult her and take great heed of what she says. I put the same question to her. Her immediate reply was "Of course, it is absurd that disabled people should be discriminated against. You get up to the House of Lords today and vote for Lord Swinfen's amendment!" That is precisely what I intend to do. Moreover, not only will I have voted for it if, as I hope, he presses it, but I shall also have spoken for it.
I should just like to say this to my Front Bench who had difficulties—now resolved, I believe—about the matter at Committee stage. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say what in fact I am sure he said at Committee stage; namely, that the Labour Party is not block-headed about this matter, that there is genuine feeling on both sides of the argument and that noble Lords on this side of the House will vote according to their conscience rather than in accordance with the party line. I feel sure that there will be no party Whip on this issue.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I hope that the Government will stick to their views on an issue that is absolutely plain and has been clearly stated by various speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, wants to remove what he calls discrimination—I think that that was the word he used—against the current tenant of a specific property. The method that he proposes is to impose discrimination on all those unknown future disabled people who might want and need to rent that very same property. It is as simple as that. I am wholly in support of the Government's attitude.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, a great deal of hot air has been generated on this issue. I wonder how many noble Lords who have spoken have ever seen any converted or specially-built houses. What does such a property have in it that makes it so difficult for an able-bodied person to use should he wish to do so? Why were those houses put in a special category in the first place, in other words? They are just houses or

1753
flats belonging to the local authority which are for rent and ought to be purchasable.
I speak as one who is temporarily disabled. I must say that the gear that we have put into our property will not be of any disadvantage to an able-bodied person. Why has it ever been decided that there is a group of dwellings that have to be put into a special category? Whatever has been said, both our Front Bench and the Government will appear very hardhearted if they do not accede to the pleas of other noble Lords who have spoken on this issue.
As regards the argument about depleting the stock of housing, as my noble friend has said, why do we single out this particular group? The stock will certainly be depleted in all ways. The homeless will certainly be at risk. The noble Baroness is worried about the heirs and successors to those houses, but I cannot see that it will be very difficult for them to re-convert the property for their use if they wish to do so. This is so trivial and so fiddling. After all, the matter concerns a group of people who have to suffer all sorts of disadvantages that the rest of us do not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have listened to a number of very persuasive speeches and there is now some confusion in my mind as to who in fact is being discriminated against. For example, a distinction has been drawn between a disabled person who lives in a house that is not adapted and a disabled person who lives in a house that has quite clearly been adapted. I take issue a little with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Some houses have had considerable amounts of money spent on them by way of adaptations: in others there is special equipment and very minor adaptation has been required. Some local authorities have spent considerable sums of money.
I am concerned about some of the examples mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his excellent speech. It appears that when a disabled person applies to buy his home, the local authority labels that piece of property as specially built or adapted, for disabled people. In fact, on making sensible comparisons with neighbouring houses it is clear that the property is being used for its own sake and the case is not substantiated. I believe that there needs to be some reference made to the different situations of the disabled person who is living in a clearly adapted house and the disabled person in a normal house.
The issue of stock is very important. If I may be so bold, perhaps I may say to the Minister that I think he is in a very real dilemma. The issue of stock is very important. Disabled people who live in adapted or non-adapted houses will pass on and some of those houses will be lost to the disabled sector. That is a very real difficulty for the Minister.
I have some sympathy with the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but I do not believe that it will answer the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, or other speakers who have sponsored the amendment. By purchasing their house, disabled people buy independence not only for themselves but also for their families. However, a problem arises in that when the disabled person who has bought the house passes on, his family still need to live in that
1754
house; it is their inheritance from that person. To have a condition that on the death of that person the property must be purchased back by the authority seems to leave that family with a special problem. That is one of my concerns.
I am not sure what my noble friend the Minister will do. I think that we can buy some time between now and the final stages of the Bill. There is definitely a will on all sides of the House not to discriminate against disabled people. In fact, I do not think that the Government feel that they are discriminating against disabled people. I believe that they have no wish to discriminate against the disabled but want to discriminate against the property that has been converted in order that it may remain in the domain of provision for the disabled. That is the case whether the person is disabled or, if not yet disabled, potentially disabled. The housing stock issue is a very real one.
It seems to me that the Government must honour their commitment both to the disabled who are now in their homes and potentially disabled people who will require homes in the future. I do not know whether one can do the almost impossible and find a suitable alternative. I believe, however, that the proposed amendment would cause discrimination in another area against the very people for whom we are all concerned. I have to admit to my noble friend the Minister that I find it almost impossible to know which way to vote on this amendment; I understand the arguments from all sides.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart is quite right about one thing: it will be obvious from speeches made from the Opposition Benches that there are differing views about this matter and that noble Lords who take the Labour Whip are entirely free to speak and vote as they wish upon it. I want to put my view. I seek to persuade my noble friends—and indeed any other of your Lordships that the Government's approach is the right one and that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, should not be accepted.
So far as I am concerned, the most significant consideration is the question of who is being discriminated against. The point has been put with great eloquence and effect that those disabled people who live in council accommodation and who would like and presumably have the means to buy their own homes are being discriminated against. They are certainly a significant and important group of disabled people who ought not to be ignored. But there are two other groups of disabled people who ought to be taken into account as well. The first group are those who live in adapted, specially built, council accommodation who are not able to buy. I suppose that one could say the case there is neutral. They are not affected, for or against, by the proposals now being made.
However, the third and most important group, in my view—it has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Carter; and nobody could accuse him of lack of sympathy for the disabled—are those who need adapted accommodation from the council who are

1755
living in unsuitable accommodation and cannot get into council accommodation unless vacancies occur. Those are the people for whom I feel most sorry. They are not only suffering financially—because those people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is referring are suffering financially but not physically—but suffering
physically because they cannot get the accommodation which is so important to them, and that is suitable for their needs. In regard to those three groups of disabled people, my sympathies fall mostly with the largest group. For that reason I am opposed to the extension of the right to buy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
It is not enough to say that the Government are simply delaying matters by looking for consultation. As I understood the Minister, he said that he was prepared to carry out this consultation because he was prepared to listen to arguments that there would be no loss or suffering on the waiting list for housing for disabled people. That is a very important consideration. It is not that he is carrying out formal consultation for the sake of it. He wants to listen to the arguments that there would be no loss of accommodation for those on the waiting lists. I do not believe that the Minister will be convinced, as a result of anything that has been said in the House today or from what may be said to him by any of the groups proposing this change, that there could be no loss.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the suggestion—which my noble friend Lord Dean put forward at Committee—that there should be a preemption right: that is, a right for the local authorities to buy when the disabled person who had bought no longer needed the accommodation, or died. That is not a question for the Minister, if I may say so with respect. It is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If he thinks the point has any validity he ought to withdraw his amendment now and come back at Third Reading with an amendment which incorporates that. He might find more sympathy for his point of view if he did so.
At the risk of being called hardhearted by my noble friend Lady Phillips, and uncaring and unfeeling by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, I believe that we ought to take into account the feelings and needs of those disabled people most in need. They are the ones who will continue to need local authority adapted accommodation.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as the mover of the original amendment in 1984 perhaps I may make a suggestion at this point. It is that disabled people be given a right to buy but with an obligation on the local authority to replace all such houses and to be allowed to use some of the money frozen from the sale of council houses for this purpose. In this way an injustice would be righted but the stock of suitable houses would be maintained. I would support the amendment on this basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course there ought to be more money spent by local
1756
authorities on housing for the disabled. However, one has to have greater expenditure on the highest number of existing properties. I urge that on the Government. The only way to achieve that aim is by keeping the properties for disabled people. That must be the case. The noble Viscount is perfectly right on that point, but it is not an argument for the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said it is a difficult decision. Perhaps I may take up some of the points that have been made by your Lordships. On the last point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, I cannot accept the proposition that he has put to us. The whole thrust of government policy on housing is in a very different direction from that which he has put forward.
My noble kinswoman said that the incentive on the disabled will be squashed. That is inaccurate because I have already accepted that we should delete paragraph 8. I fear that my noble kinswoman did not listen with her normal care to what I put before your Lordships.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I listened very carefully. However, I thought that if one takes away paragraph 8 and leaves paragraph 6 one will leave a greater muddle. There will be even more problems because local authorities will jump at any chance to stop disabled people buying their houses.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I also said that we would consult not only the local authorities but those concerned with the disabled. I must repeat this. I should not mind if paragraph 6 was omitted after the consultation. As I explained at my meeting with my noble kinswoman, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, the whole point of consultation would be that one would either leave paragraph 6 as it was; one could repeal paragraph 6; one could have regulations to cover paragraph 6; or one could amend paragraph 6 and have regulations to cover the amendment to paragraph 6. My mind was totally free. I went in with a completely open mind on that. However, I am sorry that my noble kinswoman has not accepted that offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter raised the very important point that we are talking about 40,000 houses with 18,000 on the waiting list. The point of the consultation was to determine exactly what effect that would have on the stock. I do not know whether it will diminish it or not at this stage. But I have already taken the step which I promised my noble friend Lord Swinfen at Committee stage of talking to the department about building regulations. The next opportunity will be raising with the housebuilders what they are doing with private residential dwellings so that they can be used either by the elderly disabled or those who are fully active. My noble friend Lord Swinfen is right. Of course in certain cases one might be able to increase the size of doors and have slightly wider passages on the ground floor. I promised that I would look into that matter, and I have already begun the process.

1757
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, talked about adapted stock where we were preventing the disabled and the elderly from having the right to buy. I disagree. They are exactly the people we are allowing the right to buy with the removal of paragraph 8. It is paragraph 6 with which we have the severe difficulty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the question: why not give the local authority the right to buy on the death of the disabled person? But why should not the successors to the tenant who has bought receive the benefit of the property? Why should it be put up for sale or the local authority given first option at that stage? As I said when I spoke earlier, this is a situation where the letting might not be to a disabled person but to a couple who have a disabled child. The noble Baroness thwarts the objective by saying that the property is not allowed to be passed on on the death because the successors cannot inherit; that the local authority must have the right of pre-emption.
This is a very difficult situation. The House is completely split. Many of those who imposed their will against the Government three years ago have now converted. As your Lordships know, the zeal and fervour of those converted to a cause has a special power.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Caithness: I repeat that I have never been against paragraph 6. All I felt was that we should go to consultation. But now we have from the very bedrock of socialism the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. who says, "No consultation, my Lords. We do not want any of that. Let us get on. Let us have action".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am obliged to the noble Earl, but I did not say that and I certainly did not say it in that manner. I said that there had been time for consultation but that that time had gone. Now is the time for action. I hope he will agree that that is quite a different matter.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the matter was raised only at Committee stage, there has been no time for consultation. That is exactly the point. The noble Lord obviously does not want to have consultation. I am happy that the—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should remind my noble kinsman that we made very strong speeches on Second Reading, which was quite a long time ago, before the Recess.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords. People make statements at Second Reading that they never follow up with amendments. That is perfectly true. We have many strong statements in this House, but the amendment that was discussed at Committee stage was the important point.
It is right to accept what I think is the majority will of the House. More people spoke in favour of the
1758
amendment than against it. I am sorry that your Lordships do not overwhelmingly think that it is right to go to consultation, but that there should be no consultation. However, I think we ought to bow to the will of your Lordships and accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, did I hear my noble friend correctly that he is going to accept the amendment? If that is the case, I commend it to the House.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 209) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ampthill, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lytton, E.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Croham, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Phillips, B.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Redesdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller]

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ingleby, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Killcarn. L.

Windlesham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kitchener, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mais, L.

Galpern, L.

Molloy, L.

1759

Mountevans, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Trafford, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Underhill, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Russell, E.

Seear, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Clause 120 [Right to buy: tenant's sanction for landlord's delays]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 89, line 4, after ("within") insert ("the period or).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 210A and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 210B to 210E. Clause 120 provides for a procedure which can operate where a landlord is slow at dealing with right to buy applications. It enables the tenant to serve an initial notice on the landlord complaining of the delay and if the landlord then fails to take the necessary action the tenant may serve an operative notice of delay and the tenant's rent during the continuing period of delay will be deducted from the purchase price of the dwelling on completion.
The circumstances where a tenant can serve an initial delay notice on his landlord are if he fails to deliver within certain set periods of time certain statutory notices; for example, admitting or denying the right to buy or the notice of purchase price. The tenant can also serve such a delay notice if he considers his right to buy application is being delayed by the landlord.
This further group of amendments which I referred to when I moved the insertion of Clause 120 at Committee stage relates only to the circumstances when the landlord has breached the statutory deadlines for the delivery of notices.
The effect of Clause 120 as it stands is that where a landlord fails to meet these deadlines the rent does not begin to count towards the purchase price until the service of an operative notice which can only be served at least one month after the initial notice. This has the effect of extending the statutory deadlines imposed on the landlord. These amendments provide that instead of the rent beginning to count from service of the operative notice it should be reckoned from the date of the statutory deadline. For cases in the pipeline where the statutory deadlines have been breached before the commencement of these provisions the calculation of rent to be deducted will start from the date when Clause 120 comes into force.
By linking the rent calculation directly to the date of the statutory deadlines this amendment will make the delay procedure more logical and comprehensible and improve the level of compensation available to tenants.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments 210B to 210E:
Page 89, line 8, after ("within") insert ("the period of").
Page 89, line 13, at end insert—
("and where an initial notice of delay specifies ay of the cases in paragraphs (a) to (d), any reference in this section or section 153B to the default date is a reference to the end of the period referred to in the paragraph in question or, if it is later, the day appointed for the coming into force of section 120 of the Housing Act 1988").
Page 90, line 6, at end insert ("the default date or, if the initial notice of delay specified the case in subsection (1)(e)").
Page 90, line 17, after ("after") add ("the default date or, as the case may be").
On Question amendments agreed to.
Clause 121 [Restriction on letting etc. of certain houses in National Parks etc.]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendent No. 211:
Page 91, line 42, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks etc. acquired under the right to buy]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 92, line 30, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Schemes for payments to assist local housing authority tenants to obtain other accommodation]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 212A:
Page 94, line 44, at end insert—
("() A scheme under this section shall not exclude, but may be solely for, tenants of dwelling-houses designed or adapted for occupation by disabled people,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 125 gives housing authorities the power to set up schemes to make payments to their tenants who buy and/or adapt private housing. The law as it stands allows authorities to give assistance only towards the cost of moving and not the cost of house purchase. The clause is, in effect, a form of the transferable discount which we discussed in Committee. It is expected that the schemes will exist mainly in areas where there is an appreciable quantity of council housing of a type whose tenants will be unlikely to exercise the right to buy even if they could afford to—for example, flats in either large high rise or high density blocks. Such areas are also likely to have a considerable number of homeless people and others in acute housing need.
The schemes could include the tenants of housing designed or adapted for disabled people and likely to be limited to inner city areas. Disabled tenants and disabled people who wish to become tenants are to be found in all parts of the country, even if not in large numbers. Fifty per cent. of homeless people are to be found in rural areas and the disabled represent a higher proportion of homeless than in the population as a whole.
The amendment is designed to ensure that local authorities are able to establish such schemes largely for disabled people. It would be helpful in deciding whether to press the amendment if the Minister could clarify that they will be able to set up such schemes.
The payments under the clause would be similar to transferable discounts. There is no suggestion that tenants in adapted housing will not be able to benefit from them. However, the schemes may be local and limited to the local authority area, even to particular estates. The disabled who are in need of appropriate housing or the tenanted housing that is adapted for them are not constricted in that way in narrow groups. The need and the provision is spread throughout the country, although only thinly. Therefore a patchwork of local schemes, each designed to reflect the local and general housing considerations but with no scheme at all in much of the country, would be of little assistance in either assisting existing disabled tenants or those disabled people in desperate need of rehousing.
The amendment is intended to deal with that situation. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said. The amendment seeks to provide that a local authority must include tenants of housing converted or adapted for the disabled in a cash incentive scheme and that such a scheme may be solely for such tenants. There is certainly no need for a specific provision to say that a scheme may be only for tenants of housing suitable for the disabled. Subsection 2(a) provides that a scheme may include provisions specifying the persons who are qualifying tenants or licensees for the purposes of the scheme; there is nothing to prevent an authority coming forward with a scheme solely for the class of tenant the amendment specifies.
The more substantial point of the amendment is that which would prevent a scheme excluding tenants of property particularly suitable for the disabled. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says about the advantages of cash incentive payments for tenants of specially constructed or adapted housing. However, I also share some of the doubts which have been expressed about whether many disabled people will wish to move. If they have a home which is suited to their needs: if they are familiar with local shops and other facilities; and if they have any care and support services they need arranged, the upheaval of a move is an unattractive prospect, particularly if a new home would need substantial adaptation.
The fact that relatively few people in this category may wish to move is no reason to exclude them from the scope of eligibility for schemes, and they are not excluded by the clause as it stands. It is, however, a rather different matter to say that they must be included. We have deliberately avoided prescribing details of schemes on the face of the Bill, and, as I have explained, local authorities may make a scheme open to such of their tenants as they wish, subject to my right honourable friend's consent. I do not think that it would be wise to single out tenants of property for the disabled as the only group who must be
1762
included in schemes. It might well be that an authority wished to target a scheme on larger properties suitable for families to reduce the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Would it be right to oblige them to include in their scheme small units for the disabled when other tenants in small units not specially constructed or adapted were excluded?
I understand the noble Lord's concern but, in the light of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that assurance does not go as far as I would have hoped, but it is enough to persuade me to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wonder whether this is a suitable moment at which to adjourn. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988
7 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move. That the draft 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. This draft order is to implement the final recommendations contained in the Boundary Commission for Scotland report on its 1988 interim review of 22 parliamentary constituencies. The commission submitted its report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 24th June and he proposes that its recommendations should be implemented without modification. The draft order was approved in another place yesterday and if it is approved by your Lordships today it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council to be made.
Articles 2 to 9 of the draft order substitute the 22 constituencies set out in the schedule for those constituencies as they exist at present. Article 1(3) provides for the order to come into effect forthwith and for the new boundaries to take effect at the next general election. Any by-election before that will therefore be unaffected altogether. Interim reviews of parliamentary constituencies are held at the discretion of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission between its general reviews, which have to be completed every 10 to 15 years. The 1988 review was the second such review made necessary by the alterations to the boundaries of local government areas, which originally coincided with those of the constituencies created by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1983.
The first such review, which involved 14 constituencies, was completed in 1986 and the new boundaries took effect at the last general election. Since then a number of changes have been made to regional and district boundaries which divorced them

1763
from the boundaries of the present constituencies. Most of the changes were quite small but the commission decided to review the boundaries of the 22 constituencies affected in order to remove the anomalies which had arisen. In each case the proposal is to make the minimum change necessary to realign the constituency boundary with the new local government boundary. The steps which the commission took to bring its proposals to the notice of the public, the local authorities, political parties and Members of Parliament concerned are set out in the report.
The total number of electors affected by the changes implemented is fewer than 180. Of those, 100 are situated in one area, Yoker, parts of which were transferred between the Clydebank district and the City of Glasgow district in June. In five areas no electors are involved. No substantive objections were received by the commission during the review and none has been received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State since the report was submitted to him. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to approve this draft order implementing the commission's recommendations in full.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. I have looked at it and I notice that the largest change in electorate is 100, which is in the Clydebank Milngavie county constituency and Glasgow Garscadden borough constituency. I have received no representations on this matter, although, as the Minister will know, I am familiar with most of the people in another place and in the local authority area who are likely to be affected.
I believe that we should pay some attention to the fact that the eagle eye of the Glasgow planning department was able to point out the discrepancy in the map in the Garscadden area, because these draft orders have to be correct. Grave problems can arise if there is even a minor error such as whether or not there are electors living in an area. That can cause a great deal of difficulty.
Perhaps because of my inability to look at the map properly—which I find surprising because I am not totally unfamiliar with these maps—I cannot find the reference on page 7 of the draft order as regards the illustration of the Milngavie area on map 1, where it refers to the area marked "jai", which is the Scottish pronounciation. I cannot find that reference. I suggest that the noble Earl should have a word with his colleagues in order to clear up where that is. It may be that I am making a mistake. However, I know from past experience that these matters must be very accurate. With that, I am happy to accept this draft order and I know that if there is any point that should be corrected, that will be done before the final steps are taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.7 until 7.45 p.m.]

Housing Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 125.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 212B:
Page 95, line 22, at end insert—
("(6A) In accordance with the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may issue guidance with respect to the criteria which should be followed in establishing and administering such schemes and in considering whether to revoke the approval of a scheme under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State may have regard (among other matters) to the extent to which any such guidance is being or has been followed.
(6B) Guidance issued under this section may be revised or withdrawn but, before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such bodies who appear to him to be representative of local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Its purpose is to ensure that the Government publish the criteria by which they will give approval to transferable discount schemes and to ensure that they consult local authority associations on the detail of those criteria.
The Minister will recall that during an earlier stage of the Bill he made clear that he did not wish to restrict the discretion of local authorities in giving assistance under the scheme by introducing further statutory constraints. He said that, in as many words, on 10th October, as reported in Hansard at cols. 800 to 802.
While that may seem acceptable on one level, there is considerable doubt about how this scheme will operate in practice. The original purpose of the scheme was to assist local authorities in combating homelessness. In fact, the clause as drafted allows local authorities considerable discretion to use the scheme as they think fit. For example, an authority wishing to voluntarily dispose of dwellings could use these provisions to encourage potentially recalcitrant tenants to move. It needs to be made clear that the Secretary of State would not normally give approval to schemes which were intended to be used in that way.
In introducing the new clause the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, again said that the intention is to give local authorities a new management tool to help them make the best use of their housing stock. No specific mention was made of dealing with homelessness. I know that the Minister will rely on the experience in, perhaps, Bromley and Brent. They were the first authorities to introduce a cash incentive scheme whereby tenants occupying the type of accommodation most urgently needed to house homeless households were offered grants. Therefore, I move this amendment in the hope that the Minister can say something helpful. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this amendment would allow my right honourable friend to issue guidance on the establishment and administration of schemes after consultations with organisations representative of local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, expected, I remind your Lordships that this clause is intended to give local

1765
authorities a new management tool to help them make the best use of their stock. I hope that it will be considered carefully by those authorities under particular pressure from homelessness. Indeed, the study of two existing schemes in Brent and Bromley, to which the noble Lord also referred, showed that they secured vacancies for reletting by giving modest financial help to tenants willing to move and become home owners.
I must confess, however, that I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, should be urging greater central direction when the clause, as drafted, allows local authorities the freedom to devise the arrangements which best suit their particular needs and to put them to my right honourable friend for approval. We shall be issuing practical guidance on the procedures that local authorities should follow in putting forward schemes for approval and specifying the information they will be required to provide. I do not think that a specific enabling power is needed for that, or that formal consultation with the local authority associations is called for.
However, I do not consider that it would be conducive to the success of this provision for there to be detailed central guidance on how local authorities should run schemes, or on detailed matters such as the size of payments, eligible tenants, or other such matters. Factors such as the type of vacancy the local authority is particularly anxious to have to help it meet its housing needs, local house prices and other factors will no doubt lead to some variety in the schemes which will be put forward.
As I argued in responding to amendments tabled in Committee, we see no case for restricting the imagination and inventiveness which I hope local authorities will bring to this new power. Local authorities' own judgment, not to say the attention of their auditors, and the safeguard of the requirement for my right honourable friend's consent to schemes, should be a sufficient safeguard against profligacy.
As I said in Committee, we shall be monitoring schemes, and should the need for guidance arise from time to time, I can assure the House that that guidance will be given. It is for those reasons that I do not think it is necessary to have a formal provision on the face of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He goes a long way towards reassuring me that the spirit of this amendment will be met. In fact he goes even further, because we say:
"In accordance with the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may issue guidance".
The noble Earl has told us that he will issue guidance; not only guidance, but practical guidance. However, if he categorises the issue of practical guidance as what he called "central direction", I think it is a gross misuse of language.
Anything that the ministry does which is designed to be or practical help to local authorities to fulfil their wretched role in the housing field in 1988–89 in trying to get a quart out of a pint pot would he sensible. From my experience in housing I would never have dreamt of what the Minister and his colleagues are putting forward as a solution.
1766
However I accept that providing a means to house a family that needs a four-bedroom house without strong direction, without coercion, is a useful and also modestly cheaper way of doing things, so I have no argument with that.
There will he authorities saying not, could they have some guidance, but could they have some "for instances". The Minister said that the matter would be monitored. If in, say, a year or two this element of the policy seems to be sticking, we might be getting complaints that people were unimaginative and uninventive. The Minister said that what authorities wanted was to be able to have full rein for their inventiveness and imagination—not all authorities would fall into that category but many will—but I think it is a poor substitute to have to resort to using imagination and inventiveness in this small aspect of housing when they ought to be getting on with the real job of building houses at affordable rents. However I am satisfied that the intention of the Minister and his colleagues is to give effect to what this amendment seeks, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 213:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
("Language of notices.
—(1) It shall be the duty of every person or body that issues written notices in accordance with paragraphs 6, 8, 13, 20, 41 or 85 of Schedule 2 of this Act to ensure that when such notices are issued to persons whose primary language of written communication is other than English then those notices shall he issued to those persons in that language.
(2)Subsection (1) above shall not apply to tenants.
(3)The Secretary of State shall ensure that any steps taken in accordance with section 61(2) of this Act are taken in such a way that any of those persons referred to in that section whose primary language of communication with regard to the form of the steps is not English receive the notice in their primary language.
(4)It shall be the duty of an Housing Action Trust when taking any steps in accordance with section 64(3) of this Act in relation to persons referred to in that section whose primary language of communication is not English to ensure that those steps are also taken in the primary language of those persons, and that those persons have the opportunity to make such representations as are referred to in that section in their primary language.
(5)Notwithstanding any provisions that may be prescribed under section 101 of this Act an application bound by that section shall have a duty to ensure that consultations with persons whose primary language for consultation is not English are consulted in their primary language.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause. The Minister is entitled to remind us that on earlier amendments he has satisfied me that there is no need to write their purport on the face of this Bill. The purport of this amendment is to ensure that the tenants of accommodation that will be affected, for instance, by paragraphs 6, 8, 13, 20, 41 or 85 of Schedule 2, will have it made moderately easier for them to understand what is happening by printing the communications in their own language.
The Minister is aware that particularly Asian people are not fluent in English. We again have recourse to the Policy Studies Institute Survey, Black and White Britain, when it finds that less than half of the Asians spoke English fluently. The vast majority of Asians think that it is important to speak the

1767
language of their families' areas of origin. This is an interesting and laudable aim, but it still leaves them at times bereft of comprehension of the English language.
I am told that the PSI survey found that 95 per cent. of Asians thought it a good thing to speak the language of their families' areas of origin, and 94 per cent. that children should be taught that language. What we urge here is that all efforts should be made to ensure that if the primary language of the persons in receipt of the notices mentioned in the new clause is other than English, those notices should be issued to them in that language. If the Minister is going to tell us that that is precisely what will happen and that there is no need to write it on the face of the Bill, I would accept that.
May I remind the Minister that we are talking here in respect of paragraph 6, which refers to the service of a notice of variation in terms of a statutory periodic tenancy arising at the end of a fixed-term tenancy? I can imagine that not only will the circumstances be fraught and tense, but if it is complicated by literally not understanding what is on the forms, that is something that we want to avoid. Paragraph 8 refers to the service of a notice to seek possession. The effect of that is that if people whose primary language is not English cannot understand the content and the implications of an NSP, they could be evicted without an adequate chance to defend themselves.
Paragraph 13 refers to a notice of increase in rent. The effect of not complying with what we suggest in the new clause would be that people whose primary language is not English may unexpectedly find themselves liable to higher rent. This could lead to rent arrears and ultimately, and sadly, to eviction.
There is a reason for the new clause, and there would be an effect and consequence if the proposals in the new clause were not met either by it directions being written on the face of the Bill or something else the Minister might say. I should be grateful if he could help in this matter. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we fully understand the concern behind this amendment and we have a very great deal of sympathy with some of its objectives. Indeed, our track record on this is good since our Rent Act booklets were translated into five ethnic minority languages. We have already stated in Committee our intention to ensure that sufficient information is available to people affected by the Bill. We have also said in Committee that we would expect HATs to ensure that their publicity material was in a form understandable by local people. This applies equally to any information we disseminate about the Secretary of State's proposals for HAT designation.
We have already shown our commitment to informing people in a language they can understand by translating our explanatory leaflet on HATs into Urdu, Gujerati, Vietnamese, Punjabi and Bengali. This leaflet was offered to all residents in the areas being proposed for HAT designation. And certainly under our tenants' choice proposals we want
1768
applicants to present their explanations and arguments in the clearest and most accessible form. On all of that there is, we feel sure, nothing between us. But we think this new clause does not give us the right way to secure these goals. It is unduly detailed for primary legislation, and we cannot think of any other housing or landlord and tenant legislation that contains similar provisions.
Given the large number of primary languages in this country, we cannot give a commitment to put a statutory duty on HATs to accept representations in languages other than English. We shall however do our best to ensure that HATs make great effort to understand and take account of representations whatever language they are in. Under Clause 64 HATs are required to make a statement to the Secretary of State to demonstrate the consideration they have given to points raised in the course of consultation and the representations received. This will provide a cross-check on HATs' activities.
I turn to tenants' choice. From our consideration of Amendment No. 188 it will be recalled that applicants will be obliged by regulations under Clause 101, supplemented as necessary by conditions and undertakings attached to their approval under Clause 93, to ensure that their formal offer is communicated in a comprehensive form to all tenants eligible to be consulted.
First, applicants will be required to use plain English in all written material. Secondly, where there is a significant foreseeable demand for tenants to whom written material in English is unlikely to be readily comprehensible they will be required to provide material in alternative languages and other media, that is, in languages other than English, audio and braille. Thirdly, they will be required to provide a contact address and telephone number for queries about the applicant or about the tenancy terms being offered.
We hope that this will show again that we are committed to making the consultation work effectively and fairly to ensure that all eligible tenants cast an informed vote. We believe that the amendment would simply duplicate our intentions for fulfilling these important matters in secondary legislation.
We should like to take this opportunity to announce that we have now decided to make a grant to the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and to the Federation of Independent Advice Centres for the training of their advice workers. These organisations have an important job to do in helping landlords and tenants to understand how the Bill will affect them. It is particularly important that those who may not be familiar with means of acquiring information can turn to a familiar port of call for assistance and that when they do so that assistance will be based on accurate understanding of the contents of the new legislation. We feel sure that this will be welcome news to all Members of the House. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He should understand that

1769
there is no question of our doubting for one moment the Government's intention to make sure that every person affected by the legislation is given the opportunity to understand the consequences of it in regard to his own circumstances.
The Minister has pointed out the duties and responsibilities of HAT authorities in regard to tenants' choice and landlords. Perhaps the Minister can confirm one important point. It concerns the position of every person, no matter what the primary language—I will not say from anywhere in the world (that is too wide) but certainly covering the Asian and Cypriot languages. I should like the Minister's assurance that such people will receive the documents affecting them written in their own language. We understand the plain English aspect. However, we should like to have confirmation that, if examples are drawn to the Minister's attention of cases in which this has not been done, he has the means to ensure that it will be done.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while I cannot give the noble Lord complete assurance on the matter, I can assure him that every effort will be made to give the information where required.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a question of the information being in the primary language of those affected. I shall use the word "significant" here, because it will be appreciated that 117 different languages are taught in ILEA schools. It is of course impossible to do this in all those languages. However, if examples are drawn to the Minister's attention of cases in which groups of people of a significant size have not received advice in their primary language, can he confirm that he will take steps to ensure that that is remedied?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord assurance about that which I have said already. Every possible effort and means will be directed to carry information to the applicant, landlord or tenant in the circumstances that happen to arise at any particular time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are speaking here of the interpretation of communications. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but the Minister seems to jib at accepting the words "primary language". I am not clear why he has that reservation. If he wishes every person to understand what is happening to him, the only way that that can be done—apart from plain
English—is in an ethnic minority language. I take it that the Minister agrees to take steps to ensure that that is done. I do not wish him to say any more because I am quite pleased with my last few words! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport moved Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 213A:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
("Housing the Homeless.
. In the Housing Act 1985, Part III (Housing the Homeless)—
(a) insert after section 63 (interim duty to accommodate) the following section—
"Housing pending appeal.
63A. If an applicant appeals to the county court pursuant to section MA below (appeal from a decision of a local housing authority), the local authority shall secure that accommodation remains available for his occupation on interlocutory application to the county court, pending the hearing of the appeal."
(b) delete section 64(4) (notification of decision and reasons) and insert the following—
"(4) If the local housing authority notify the applicant—

(a) that they are not satisfied that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or

(b) that they are not satisfied that he has a priorty need, or

(c) that they arc satisfied that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or

(d) that they have notified or propose to notify another
local housing authority under section 67 (referral of
application on the grounds of local connection),

they shall at the same time notify him of their reasons and of his right of appeal pursuant to section 64A below (appeal from a decision of a local housing authority).";
(b) delete section 64(5) (notification of decision and reasons) and
insert the following—
"(5) The notice required to be given to an applicant under this section shall be given in writing and shall, if not received by him, be treated as having been given to him only if it is made available at the authority's office for a reasonable period of not less than 28 days for collection by him or on his behalf; and, for the purpose of section 64A below (appeal from a decision of a local housing authority) the time available for an applicant to appeal to the county court shall not run until the expiry of 28 days from the date on which the notice was made available at the authority's office or the date on which the applicant receives the notice, whichever is the sooner.".
(d) after section 64 (notification of decision and reasons) insert the following—
Appeal from a decision of a local housing authority.
64A.—(l) An applicant notified by a local housing authority under section 64 above of

(a) their decision on the question whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness;

(b) their decision on the question whether he has a priority need;

(c) their decision whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally;

(d) whether they have notified or propose to notify another local housing authority under section 67

may within 21 days of notification appeal to the county court.
(2) On appeal the court shall consider —

(i) any fact relied on by the local housing authority as to the circumstances of the applicant's homelessness whether as a result of the authority's enquiries under section 62 or otherwise; and

(ii) any fact relied on by the applicant and set out in the applicant's Notice of Appeal; and

(iii) whether the decision by the local authority was made in accordance with the law.

(3) On an appeal the court may make such order either confirming, quashing, varying or supplanting the decision of the local authority as it thinks fit, which order shall be enforceable by injunction.
(4) Nothing in this section shall affect an application by the applicant for judicial review of the decision of the local housing authority under Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seem condemned to raise the issue of the appeal system for the homeless in the Chamber after 8 o'clock. The Minister listened with a very sympathetic ear to the pleas of the disabled earlier today, I hope that he will cock a similar ear to the pleas of the homeless.
I refer here not just to the feckless in society but to people who become homeless through no fault of their own. I am pleased that the Minister nods in

1771
agreement. Let us take the case of a parson's wife. Parsons have been known to leave their wives in rectories or vicarages. Rural deans or church commissioners, I am sure much to their distress, have to take action to get possession. The lady in question, through no fault of her own, perhaps with two children, is made homeless. She then has to endure the awful procedure of going into bed and breakfast.
There are many similar cases. I know of two in my former constituency. There have been 40,000 possession cases fought by building societies in respect of people who failed on their mortgages. I fear that the situation will get much worse with higher interest rates. A number of people through no fault of their own will find themselves in this position. There surely can be no worse situation than knowing that one has no roof over one's head for the night. I fight desperately to get the 9.55 train to the Isle of Wight because I know that I have there a roof over my head. I do not have a roof over my head in Westminster because I sold my flat to pay my debts to Barclays Bank!
I have already spoken at some length on the issue in Committee. I shall not bore the House with a diatribe by going through a prepared brief because I did that previously in Committee. The Minister may not accept it, but I am convinced I am right in saying that the position of the homeless will be weakened by the provisions of the Bill when enacted. This would be a return to the situation prior to 1977. With the aid of the then government, I was instrumental in having put on the statute book the homeless person's legislation. As I said in intervention in Committee, the Government had the right intentions in 1973–74. Indeed, I have consistently paid tribute to the then Minister, Sir Hugh Rossi, for issuing two circulars, 13/74 and 17/74, which asked local authorities to do the right thing in housing people with priority needs. However, it was not a legal obligation. As I read the Bill, the Government want to do away with council housing. They may as well come clean. They may as well do away with councils altogether. We have said this a number of times. I do not see a role for elected local government in this country. It might just as well be an agent for departments of state.
The Government are keen to see council estates broken up and have not said a word about those that are well run. They refer only to the ones that are badly run. I accept that there are badly run council estates. They are not putting on to the successor owners of the estates— housing associations and in particular private landlords— a legal obligation to house the homeless. That is staying with the local authority. How on earth will local authorities be able to carry out that obligation when they will not have properties to put homeless people in? Only about 20,000 houses are being built in the public sector at the moment. Presumably that number will fall to nil in the near future.
One of the reasons why I found myself myself in the Government Lobby on a previous amendment was that I felt that the chances of there being any purpose-built properties for the disabled in the future were virtually nil. While one has every sympathy for
1772
the idea of disabled people having the opportunity to buy their own homes, nevertheless those disabled people who follow will have that much more difficulty in ever being housed in purpose-built property. In the same way the generation growing up now and those just beginning to earn will find it terribly hard to acquire a property. A great many elderly people in rented accommodation face staggering increases in rents. One wonders whether they will ever get public assistance to be able to pay the rents that will be demanded from them.
The Bill weakens the position of successor landlords. It asks them to use their best endeavours to help to house the homeless but does not go further than that. That is why we are going back to square one. What will councils do when faced with increasing numbers of homeless people? We know that there are already more than 100,000 homeless people and we suspect that the number will increase. Councils will use the let-out clause "intentionally homeless" more and more. They have already done it. They will put people into bed and breakfast accommodation and argue that case. Therefore. the need for a sensible appeals system becomes ever more desperate. There will be increasing resistance by local authorities. We have seen it, and I admitted it in a previous debate.
Tower Hamlets was faced with vast numbers of Bangladeshis claiming that they should be housed. It had no houses to put them in. What on earth should it have done? It used the excuse of intentional homelessness, saying that the people came knowing that they should not be housed because they had a house back in Bangladesh. The council was criticised very strongly by the courts, I think rightly so. But what does a local authority do when it does not have the bricks and mortar? It is like the position of the old social services which were obliged to deal with the homeless but had no houses in which to put them. That is why the responsibility was moved from the social services to the housing authorities.
There should be an appeals system. Local authorities will find a greater number of excuses to say why they should not house certain people. I shall not go into cases. Many cases have been presented to me by SHAC and Shelter showing that this is happening increasingly. I should like to remind the Minister that the Government have already shown a sympathetic ear to the idea of an appeals system. On 22nd October 1986 during the Report stage of the Housing and Planning Bill the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, a Minister at the Department of the Environment at the time, promised that the Government would consider the need for a homelessness appeal as part of their civil justice review.
In June this year the Review Body on Civil Justice published its report. It accepted that judicial review is not generally an appropriate remedy for homeless people refused housing. The number of cases taken to judicial review has decreased in recent years since a notorious case. The review body supported the case for a county court appeal. I know that the Minister made a sympathetic response when I raised this issue a week or two ago. I should like from him now a firm undertaking that this will not be left to a further

1773
review on homelessness legislation. We want a definite commitment from him that, if we cannot write the appeal into the Bill —I should love to get enough noble Lords to support me and vote it through but I obviously cannot at this time— we shall have within a reasonable period a sympathetic decision from the Government on the issue.
Having weakened the position of the homeless by this measure, I hope that the Government will at least give them the opportunity, if they think they have a strong enough case and they think that a local authority is being bloody-minded, to take that case to the county court. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to add our support to the amendment. It would be presumptious of me to attempt to better the way in which the arguments have been put. I have one point to add which ends with a specific question to the Minister. On the issue of judicial review as opposed to an appeal to the county court, the Minister will recall that on 22nd October 1986 the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who at that time was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, said during the Report stage of the Housing and Planning Bill that the Government would consider the need for a homelessness appeal as part of the civil justice review.
The civil justice review body published its report in June 1988. It said that judicial review was not generally an appropriate remedy for homeless people. It supported the case for a county court appeal, which is what the amendment seeks. I refer the Minister to that part of his brief which says that paragraphs 717 and 750 of the review body report make the point. Will the Minister in his reply say on what basis he rejects the view of the review body which had been anticipated by his noble friend only two years ago.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, for again raising the important issue of the homeless. As I said in Committee, the matter is very much on my desk at the moment. Where I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, as indeed he would expect, is in his assertion that the position of the homeless will be weakened because of the Bill. I strongly disagree with him on that point.
I have listened carefully to what has been said by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the homeless and whether applicants should have a right of appeal against a local authority's decision. Local authorities are best placed to determine individual homelessness applications and the current legislation recognises this. A more satisfactory procedure than the one proposed might be that authorities set up their own informal appeal system, as some already have. We touched on that point in Committee.
Housing law does not provide for a statutory appeals procedure for housing allocation matters generally, and it would be wrong to seek to introduce
1774
one which relates only to homelessness. Those who are not accepted on to housing waiting lists, for example, have no right of appeal. If this amendment were accepted, we would be making available to just one category of people seeking to be housed a remedy which is not available to any other category of people applying to be housed. Such a situation would not he fair and would, I suggest, create considerable difficulties and confusion.
There is a further argument against the amendment. In Committee, when we considered a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, I referred to the fact that there is a review of homelessness legislation under way. While we are making every effort to bring the review to a speedy conclusion, we are still some way from reaching any decisions. Therefore I believe to recommend changes to the legislation at this stage would be both inappropriate and premature.
I know that the noble Lord will not like that answer but, he did ask me to listen as carefully to the issue regarding the situation of the homeless as I did to that concerning the disabled earlier this afternoon. I give him that categorical assurance that I shall do so. That is why I am taking such a special interest in the review.
Both noble Lords refer to the civil justice review which concluded that a formal recommendation to change the system would have involved an investigation of the homelessness legislation and of judicial review, neither of which was within the scope of the review. That is why we did not pursue the matter. However, I also confirm to the noble Lord that I shall bear the matter very much in mind when we are undertaking the review of the homeless.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I hope with all my heart—I really mean this—that the Minister is right when he interprets the legislation as meaning that it will not lead to any weakness in the position of the homeless in the future. I do not share that view because he is not putting a legal obligation to house on the successor landlords; they have to use their best endeavours, or words to that effect. That is not the same as saying that they must give priority to the limited number of people in our society to whom the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 (its predecessor) gave priority.
We are talking about pregnant women; we are talking about young families with children; we are talking about old people who are vulnerable for one reason or another and people who are made homeless through no fault of their own— through fires and suchlike. That is all it applies to. It does not apply to the single homeless or vast numbers of our society who may for some reason or other become homeless. It only takes in a limited number of people.
When children were taken into care by the social services it broke up families and cost this country vast sums of money. That was one of the reasons for the Act. It was extremely expensive and broke up families unnecessarily. That is why I come back to the issue. It is not the same thing to say, as I think the Minister indicated in his reply, that because you are on a housing list, why should you have a similar sort of priority to people who have children?

1775
Of course we know that there are feckless people in our society who should perhaps not get themselves pregnant or should not be having families; but we must always think of the child first. That is what I am putting to the Minister. Nevertheless, I think that his heart is in the right place and I honestly believe that. I ask him to think about the problem which we could be facing if we are not careful. I believe that the Bill could lead to such a situation. I say that quite genuinely, without trying to be party political in any way.
I think that in the future we could begin to see situations where mothers and children are actually begging in the street. I have seen such situations abroad; I have seen it in Ireland— and I am not entirely sure that our streets in this country are totally devoid of it now. That is not a situation that I am prepared to accept. In a democratic country surely that is not a situation that anyone can possibly wish to see; but it could well happen. Under the present legislation there is priority for such people but I believe that the Bill's provisions weaken that situation.
In conclusion, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he can give us some idea when the review will reach finality and when we will receive a statement from him as to what the decision will be. He always puts me off, but there are those who feel that that issue should come in the review. Can we therefore have an indication as to when we shall know the outcome? Will it be within three or six months' time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a date. Indeed, it would be wrong of me to do so at this stage. However, I can tell him that there is a great deal of urgency in the matter to try to process the review as quickly as possible. But, as the noble Lord knows full well, there are many other reviews in progress on the issue of the homeless; for example, the Shelter/SHAC report is one. In fact I think there are about four reports which have appeared over the past few weeks or so, and obviously we wish also to digest their contents.
I cannot give him the date which he has requested, but I shall ensure that there is no slackness, so to speak, in getting our thoughts through and the report out.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I think that he is in fact saying that there will be no undue delay in the process. I accept that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 128 [Consent to disposals of housing stock and application of receipts]:
[Amendment No. 214 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 214A:
Page 97, line 45, at end insert—
("(2A) After section 35 of the Housing Act 1985 (repayment of discount on early disposals) there shall be inserted—
1776
"35A. A person who acquires property under this Part shall not dispose of it except with the consent of the Secretary of State except in the following circumstances—

(a) the disposal is in pursuance of a right of pre-emption granted to the local authority under a covenant on condition pursuant to the powers contained within section 33(2)(b) above; or

(b) the disposal has the consent of the local authority pursuant to powers granted under section 37 of this Act (Restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks etc); or

(c) the disposal is an exempted disposal under section 39 of this Act; or

(d) the disposal is to a landlord approved by the Housing Corporation under section 93 of the Housing Act 1988; or

(e) the disposal is pursuant to an application made under Part V of this Act (the Preserved Right to buy." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 214A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 214B and 214C. Although the amendments do not cover quite the same subject, they all deal with the same theme. They are concerned with voluntary disposals. When local authorities take initiative on their own to dispose of all, or part, of their housing stock outside the sphere of public housing—or, at any rate, away from council housing—they are doing so generally under the conditions of the Housing Act 1985.
The common argument behind the amendments is that the Housing Act 1985 has in many respects been overtaken by the provisions of Part IV of the Bill. We went into great detail yesterday, and in Committee, through Part IV of the Bill and the various safeguards which we think should exist to protect tenants whose homes are being sold under them, so to speak.
As the Minister knows, we are not satisfied with many of the conditions in Part IV; but we acknowledge that there are a substantial number of safeguards in that part of the Bill to protect tenants who are changing landlords. The point we are making now is that those safeguards ought to apply as strongly to the tenants who are subject to voluntary disposals by local authorities as to those who are subject to the transfer under the conditions of Part IV. They are the same kind of tenants; they are no different. They consist of the same mix of male and female, old and young and blond or dark. They are not in any way peculiar or stigmatised by the fact that their local authority has chosen to take the initiative. Therefore why should they be treated differently in other ways? Why should the safeguards which exist for those under Part IV not exist in this part of the Bill?
I turn now to Amendment No. 214A, which I confess to be exceedingly complicated because it consists of at least two sets of negatives before it gets to a positive. Nevertheless, in this amendment we seek to oblige the Secretary of State to consent to the resale of properties sold under a voluntary disposal by local authorities.
In paragraphs (a) to (e) we are suggesting circumstances where the Secretary of State's consent could be dispensed with because adequate protection exists in other ways. But we say that in other circumstances the Secretary of State's approval for resale is desirable. In other words, the deal which is done by the local authority, when it disposes of its housing stock, should have some degree of

1777
continuity. It should not be possible for the purchaser to sell off again, except when there are reasonable conditions to protect the tenants. Such powers exist in Part IV of the Bill in Clause 104 and we see no reason why they should not apply in the case of voluntary disposals.
Amendment No. 214B is concerned with the right to remain in the case of voluntary disposals. We have debated the right to remain at great length. In Committee we made some changes, especially to the right to remain under the tenants' choice provisions. Why should tenants whose councils choose to seek voluntary disposal of their homes have lesser or different rights? Again, we are arguing that the tenant should have the right to opt out, so to speak, of the disposal. We cannot see why they should have any lesser rights than in other local authorities. We are not convinced by the arguments used in Committee for denying that right.
Amendment No. 2140 relates to a disposal. If disposal has been approved by the local authority under Clause 93, that disposal should be only to approved landlords. Part IV goes into great detail as to what shall constitute the basis for approval. It covers the conditions under which there could be a revocation of approval. We have always acknowledged that in Part IV there are many protections for tenants. We believe that they are valuable and should properly be applied. Why should they not apply to Part V as well? Those whose homes are being disposed of need to know that the applicant is operating on a sound financial basis, has adequate professional skills, knows about housing management, is not too small to handle the job of housing management which it is trying to take on, recognises the obligation to let at affordable rents for those in low paid employment, complies with proper housing management practice and submits an annual return to the Housing Corporation.
The Government have agreed to all those points when it comes to Part IV. Why cannot they agree it when it comes to voluntary disposals? I confess that I am puzzled that there should be the degree of resistance to such an amendment that there has been. If we do not have the wording right, by all means we should withdraw the amendment and revise it. The principle that all tenants are alike when they are having their landlords changed without necessarily their consent and that they should be entitled to certain protection should commend itself to the House. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our new clause controlling subsequent disposals of housing sold under Section 32 or 43 of the Housing Act 1985 was designed with large scale transfers of council housing in mind. However, as the noble Lord has recognised, those sections cover not only large scale disposals but virtually all voluntary disposals of tenanted council housing.
Disposals under Sections 32 and 43 are happening all the time. In most cases, they involve one or two, or a handful of houses, often sold to sitting tenants or other individuals who wish to make the property
1778
their home. They have been taking place for years without the need to control subsequent disposals of the property. However, as our new clause is drafted, they are caught by the Secretary of State's control.
Amendment No. 214A, as the noble Lord explained, proposes a number of circumstances in which consent to a subsequent disposal would not he required. I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment and indeed, in one instance, our new clause overlaps it. I hope to satisfy your Lordships that we are intending to achieve similar ends by a different means.
We do not want to introduce a new layer of bureaucracy where it is not needed. We recognise that for many of the small scale disposals which local authorities make, it would not make sense to require the Secretary of State's subsequent consent. However, in drafting our clause, we found that it was extremely difficult to distinguish between the large scale disposals which we were aiming at, and the everyday smaller disposals. We concluded that it was simply not practicable to make the distinction. Instead, we have a provision in subsection (1) of the clause that subsequent consent is not required if the consent to the original disposal says so. Therefore, we envisage exempting smaller scale disposals from the subsequent control by stating in the original consent that no further consent is necessary.
One of the circumstances in which Amendment No. 214A would lift control is where the subsequent disposal is to an approved landlord. The difficulty is that the mechanism we are using to police those subsequent disposals is to enter a restriction in the Land Registry entry for the property. At the point of the original disposal, the Land Registry would enter a restriction except if it were an exempt disposal, as defined in our clause, or if the original consent waived the need for subsequent consent. Once the restriction is entered, it would not be reasonable to ask the Land Registry to satisfy itself about circumstances in which it could he lifted. Either there is a restriction from the outset or there is not.
There is one exception to that rule which is where the subsequent disposal is to someone who qualifies for the statutory preserved right to buy. That is one of the exempt proposals to which subsection (1) of the clause refers. So we have already included category (e) of the noble Lord's amendment.
Amendments Nos. 214B and 214C continue the debate which we started in Committee. The noble Lord's arguments, although put with characteristic eloquence, do not sway me any more now than they did then. He compares the provisions governing voluntary transfers unfavourably with those that apply under tenants' choice. I understand the temptation to compare the two regimes; but we are considering two completely different sets of circumstances. Here we are considering proposals initiated by the local democratically-elected council. We have the position where the council wishes to opt out of direct housing provision altogether because it believes that the housing would be better provided and better managed by someone else. That is very much in line with the philosophy that we outlined in our housing White Paper last autumn. It is a different

1779
situation from the one which pertains to tenants' choice. We cannot dismiss such a proposition out of hand. Yet effectively that is what Amendment 214B would do.
Of course there would be safeguards, and there are safeguards. That is what we have provided.
Amendment No. 214C seeks to limit disposals under Sections 32 and 43 of the Housing Act, so that they can only be to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation for the purposes of tenants' choice. I explained in Committee that we already have perfectly adequate controls for ensuring that the housing in these instances goes to a suitable, responsible landlord: the local authority will be in a position to choose its purchaser and to lay down conditions which the purchaser must meet; and the Secretary of State will have to agree to the transfer.
We have said that landlords wanting to take over the housing should be able to demonstrate that they were stable, responsible and had a long-term commitment to providing rented housing for those who need it. We would expect councils to obtain undertakings that the purchaser would take account of housing demand and conditions in granting tenancies, and relet housing at rents within the reach of people in lower-paid employment. These are the sort of criteria we will operate when considering proposals for large scale transfers. It is simply not necessary to impose yet another control.
There is a final reason why I believe your Lordships should reject this amendment. These sections do not govern merely the large scale transfers which we have in mind during these debates. Broadly speaking, they cover every voluntary disposal of tenanted council housing, however large or small a transaction. Most disposals under those sections are of one or two, or a handful, of properties. They include all voluntary sales of dwellings to sitting tenants except those with the statutory right to buy; and sales of houses to individuals who will make it their home. The effect of what the noble Lord wants would be to prevent any such sales taking place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I listened to the Minister's objections to Amendment No. 214A with interest and sympathy. I listened to his objections to Amendment No. 214B with utter disbelief. I could not believe that he still was unable to understand the position in which tenants will find themselves. It does not make any difference to the tenants whether the council is disposing of the properties voluntarily. They are the same tenants, they are in the same houses, they have the same need for protection. Since many of the councils which are going for voluntary disposals have probably been elected largely by owner occupiers, they have not even taken an active or successful part in the democratic process which leads to the voluntary disposal. If we look at it from their point of view and not from a centralist point of view, which is what the Government are doing, none of the Minister's arguments holds water.
I accept that there is a technical fault in all these amendments in that they are made to apply to small
1780
disposals as well as large ones. That is a valid point and it is on that basis that I should be willing to withdraw Amendments Nos. 214B and 214C. But the Minister must not think that because I do so I have been convinced in any way by his arguments. The issue of human rights has not been damaged in any way.
I listened to what the Minister said about Amendment No. 214A and the alternative proposals in his Amendment No. 215. I was glad to have his elucidation. As always with these amendments which refer back to previous legislation, it is very difficult for a layman to grasp the full implication. I am glad to hear from the Minister that the intention is the same and that some of the provisions overlap. I shall follow the situation with interest as it develops. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214B and 214C not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 215:
After Clause 128, insert the following new clause:
("Consent required fir certain subsequent disposals.
.—(1) Where consent is required for a disposal (in this section referred to as "the original disposal-) by virtue of section 32 or section 43 of the Housing Act 1985 and that consent does not provide otherwise, the person who acquires the land or house on the disposal shall not dispose of it except with the consent of the Secretary of State; but nothing in this section shall apply in relation to an exempt disposal as defined in section [consent required for subsequent disposals by approved persons] (7) above.
(2) Where an estate or interest of the person who acquired the land or house on the original disposal has been mortgaged or charged, the prohibition in subsection (1) above applies also to a disposal by the mortgagee or chargee in exercise of a power of sale or leasing, whether or not the disposal is in the name of the person who so acquired the land or house; and in any case where—

(a) by operation of law or by virtue of an order of court, the land or house which has been acquired passes or is transferred from the person who so acquired it to another person, and

(b) that passing or transfer does not constitute a disposal for which consent is required under this section,

this section (including, where there is more than one such passing or transfer, this subsection) shall apply as if the other person to whom the land or house passes or is transferred were the person who acquired it on the original disposal.
(3) Where subsection (I) above applies—

(a) if section 34 of the Housing Act 1985 applies to the consent given to the original disposal, subsections (2)(b) and (3) to (4A) of that section shall also apply to any consent required by virtue of this section;

(b) if the consent to the original disposal was given under section 43 of that Act, subsections (2)(b) and (3) to (4A) of that section shall also apply to any consent required by virtue of this section;

(c) in the application of subsection (4A) of section 34 or section 43 to any consent required by virtue of this section, any reference to the local authority making the disposal shall be construed as a reference to the local authority making the original disposal; and

(d) the instrument by which the original disposal is effected shall contain a statement in a form approved by the Chief Land Registrar that the requirement of this section as to consent applies to a subsequent disposal of the land or house by the person to whom the original disposal was made.

(4) Subsection (4) of section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 or, as the case may be, subsection (5) of section 43 of that Act (options to purchase as disposals) applies for the purposes of this section.
(5) If, apart from subsection (6) below, the consent of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales would be required under section 9 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (control of dispositions of land by housing associations) for a disposal in respect of which, by virtue of subsection (I) above, the consent of

1781
the Secretary of State is required, the Secretary of State shall consult that body before giving his consent for the purposes of this section.
(6) No consent shall be required under the said section 9 for any disposal in respect of which consent is given in accordance with subsection (5) above.
(7) Where the title of the authority to the land or house which is disposed of by the original disposal is not registered, and the original disposal is a conveyance, grant or assignment of a description mentioned in section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (compulsory registration of title)—

(a) that section applies in relation to the instrument by which the original disposal is effected whether or not the land or house is in an area in which an Order in Council under section 120 of that Act (areas of compulsory registration) is in force;

(b) the authority shall give to the person to whom the original disposal is made a certificate in a form approved by the Chief Land Registrar stating that the authority is entitled to make the disposal subject only to such encumbrances, rights and interests as arc stated in the instrument by which the original disposal is effected or summarised in the certificate; and

(c) for the purpose of registration of title, the Chief Land Registrar shall accept such a certificate as evidence of the facts stated in it, but if as a result he has to meet a claim against him under the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1986 the authority by whom the original disposal was made is liable to indemnify him.

(8) On an application being made for registration of disposition of registered land or. as the case may be, of the title under a disposition of unregistered land, if the instrument by which the original disposal is effected contains the statement required by subsection (3)(d) above, the Chief Land Registrar shall enter in the register a restriction stating the requirement of this section as to consent to a subsequent disposal.
(9) In every case where the consent of the Secretary of State is required for the original disposal by virtue of section 32 or section 43 of the Housing Act 1985 (whether or not consent is required under this section to a subsequent disposal), the authority by which the original disposal is made shall furnish to the person to whom It is made a copy of that consent.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 215 and speak to Amendment No. 251. This clause is designed to strengthen the reassurances to tenants that their housing will not be sold on to an unsuitable landlord. When we published guidelines on large-scale voluntary transfers of council housing in June, we set out the terms on which we might allow councils to dispose of all or a large part of their housing. In those guidelines we made it clear that we would expect the housing to go to a landlord which could demonstrate that it was stable, responsible and had a long-term commitment to the provision of rented housing for those who need it. We said that we would expect local authorities to obtain undertakings from the purchaser that he would normally re-let housing at rents within the reach of those in lower-paid employment.
So the position is that we are looking for a commitment to providing long-term rented housing for those who need it. We do not expect landlords taking over council housing to sell it in normal circumstances, because they have that long-term commitment. But as a back-stop we also said that we would be taking powers in this Bill to control disposal of property by the new landlord. This new clause fulfils that commitment. It requires a purchaser to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of property bought under Sections 32 or 43 of the 1985 Housing Act.
Amendment No. 251 brings the clause into force on Royal Assent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think that I responded to this amendment in talking to the last amendment we debated. Perhaps it might have made more sense to have grouped the two together. I am still worried by the phrases which the Minister used in moving this amendment and in his response to my amendment: "We expect this" and "We do not expect that". Expectations are not very positive unless they can be secured either by legislation or regulation.
I was not convinced by the way the Minister spoke about the earlier amendments. I shall have to read very carefully what he said and what the new clause says in order to be convinced that we can have some security that his expectations will be carried out. Clearly this is a move in the right direction and we will not oppose the new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)moved Amendment No. 216:
After Clause 128, insert the following new clause:
("Consent required for certain subsequent disposals: Scotland.
.—(1) In Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (provision of housing) after section 12 there shall be inserted the following section—
("Consent of Secretary of State required for certain subsequent disposals.
12A.—(1) Where a person acquires any land or house from a local authority under section 12(1)(c) or (d) above and the consent of the Secretary of State is required under section 12(7) above to the local authority's disposal of the land or house to that person, that person shall not dispose of the land or house without the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.
(2) Any consent for the purposes of subsection (I) above may he given either in respect of a particular disposal or in respect of disposals of any class or description (including disposals in particular areas) and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
(3) The consent of Scottish Homes under section 9 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (control of dispositions) is not required for any disposal, or disposals of any class or description, in respect of which consent is given under subsection (1) above.
(4)In this section references to disposing of property include references to—

(a) granting or disposing of any interest in property;

(b) entering into a contract to dispose of property or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and

(c) granting an option to acquire property or any such interest.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 216 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 252 and 254. The new Section 12A we are proposing should be added to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. It seeks to establish the requirement that a person who acquires stock from the local authority with the consent of the Secretary of State cannot subsequently dispose of it without the further approval of the Secretary of State. This is a parallel to the tenants' choice provisions in Clause 63 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill considered by this House before the Recess, where consent to first subsequent disposals must also be obtained, in that case from Scottish Homes. We believe that it is necessary to make provision for this kind of control. It will avoid the possibility of the original acquiring landlord arranging to transfer former local authority stock to another landlord who would not meet the

1783
criteria the Secretary of State would expect to be fulfilled in a landlord taking over public sector stock.
The provisions in the new clause will allow both for individual and for general consents to be given by the Secretary of State to first subsequent disposals. An example of where general consents would be appropriate would be sales to sitting tenants.
The intention to bring forward this provision was signalled during debate on the Report stage of this Bill in another place. It was also heralded in the information paper issued last month to housing authorities and others on the way in which the Secretary of State proposes to operate the powers set out in Clause 128 of this Bill.
It might be helpful if I explained at this stage the way in which this approval process will work. In practice the Secretary of State will take into account, in considering whether to approve a further sale, the same sorts of criteria as he would under his powers in Section 12 of the 1987 Scottish Act when considering the local authority's initial proposal to sell to a private landlord. Factors which would be taken into account— as, for example, set out in the Scottish Development Department's September information paper — will include the purchasing landlord's commitment to provide on a long-term basis housing for rent within the means of those in lower paid employment; the new landlord's ability to provide a good service to tenants; and the independence of the new landlord from the public sector. Although (as in the corresponding provision applying in England) there will be no statutory requirement again to consult tenants, in most cases the Secretary of State would of course wish to ensure that he is fully aware of tenants' views before reaching a decision on any proposal put to him. Noble Lords need have no fear that tenants' views will be overlooked.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 252 and 254 are technical, and cater for the commencement and extent of the new clause. The new clause will he brought into force on Royal Assent. I believe these provisions offer a sensible safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having put down these amendments, which, as he said, were mentioned in general in an earlier part of the discussion on this Bill, particularly the sections on those areas relating to Scotland. I think that the Government are beginning to appreciate that there is genuine unease among tenants about the change of tenancy and of owners. There is a long history of landlordism in Scotland which could not exactly be called a proud history. Therefore there is unease both from direct experience and from folk experience, and a great deal of protection is required.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said on the previous amendment, it is not enough, or at least we hope it will be enough but history has shown that it is not always enough, that the Secretary of State should expect or not expect certain things to be done. Landlords and even tenants do not always pay that much attention over the years to what the Secretary of State may have said this year. Some of
1784
the housing legislation is many years old. We often find, particularly in older areas where there are all sorts of peculiar happenings with house letting, that parts of Acts which we thought had died long ago are resuscitated.
The Minister has gone some way in this amendment. In the subsequent amendments I shall try to spell out some of the concerns and the worries that have been expressed to me by tenants, and some of the additional safeguards they would like. In the meantime, I am happy to accept the amendment the Minister has put down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 216A:
Before Clause 129, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation: Scottish Homes.
. In Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (provision of housing) after section 13 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Consultation: Scottish Homes.
13A. Where Scottish Homes has a power to sell any dwelling house to a private landlord the provision of Schedule 6A shall apply to Scottish Homes as if it were a local authority. For the purposes of this section any reference in Schedule 6A to a local authority shall be substituted with a reference to Scottish Homes.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 6A was originally inserted into the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 by the Government in Committee. The schedule introduces a right for local authority tenants to be consulted over any proposal by a local authority to transfer ownership of their homes to private landlords. This new requirement is very welcome although, unfortunately, only the collective objection of a majority of tenants will be able to prevent a change of ownership and the loss of their secure tenancies. A tenant has no individual right to veto the sale of his own house and the subsequent loss of his secure tenancy.
Nevertheless, this statutory right to consultation is an important new right for local authority tenants. Therefore, it is most disappointing that the right is not extended to future Scottish Homes tenants. The proposed amendment simply seeks to bring Scottish Homes into the scope of Schedule 6A, giving it the same statutory duty as local authorities to consult its tenants about any proposals to transfer ownership of their homes.
I have received representations from a number of groups, in particular Shelter Scotland. The Minister may be aware of that body's argument. Shelter believes it is only reasonable and fair that every public sector landlord should have a legal duty to consult his tenants over transfers. Shelter can see no reason for making an exception of Scottish Homes, as that is a public sector landlord, largely financed by the state.
While we hope that the Secretary of State would, in any case, make it a condition of his consent to transfers that Scottish Homes consults its tenants first, the goodwill of Scottish Homes and the Secretary of State's discretion are no substitute for a clear, statutory right to consultation. I am sure that the Minister, and his right honourable friend the

1785
Secretary of State, have plenty of goodwill, but we do not know what will happen in 10 or 20 years' time. Then the housing market will be different. It may be easier or it may be much more difficult. We hope that the Minister will take these points on hoard. We look forward to hearing his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, of course I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, makes. This amendment seeks to impose on Scottish Homes by statute the requirement to have regard to the views of tenants liable, as a result of disposal by the new agency, to cease to be secure tenants. To apply such a requirement by statute is unnecessary as it will be one of many which the Secretary of State for Scotland will apply to Scottish Homes, as he currently does to the Scottish Special Housing Association.
As the Secretary of State for Scotland has already made clear that this requirement will be made on Scottish Homes, I hope the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw his amendment. However, before I sit down, I wish to quote to the noble Lord from a letter written by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to Mr. Reynolds in June of this year. Mr. Reynolds is the Chairman of the National Federation of SSHA Tenants. The letter states in relation to this particular situation:
"However, I have consistently made it clear that it will he a condition of my consent to such transfers that tenants have been properly consulted and are in favour of the change."
The letter continues— and I think this is very relevant and important—
"I will ensure through my powers of administrative control that the same safeguards apply to Scottish Homes' tenants, in relation to any proposal by Scottish Homes to transfer houses to another landlord."
In other words, the powers which already exist, and which have been operating for some years with the SSHA, will be devolved upon Scottish Homes. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and the trouble he has taken. The very fact that the Minister's right honourable friend wrote to Mr. Reynolds in the terms he did shows that the Secretary of State from his experience knows the anxieties that people have.
I am sure that at this late stage we shall not get a firm commitment from the Government to put anything on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we shall perhaps need to live with this unease in the future. The present Secretary of State may in time find that his intentions and his hopes have been betrayed. However, I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken and for the explanation that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 129 [Consultation before disposal.: Scotland]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 98, line 39, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("coming into force").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Schedule to be inserted in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 162, line 19, leave out ("(iv)") and insert ("(iii)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 15 introduces a duty for a local authority which is disposing of its houses or transferring its houses to a private landlord to consult its tenants. There is no such statutory obligation where the proposed transfer is to Scottish Homes. There is of course a particularly strong need for consultation where the proposed transfer is to the private sector, because it involves a secure tenant becoming an assured tenant.
The Minister is well aware of the insecurity that an assured tenant has, as against a secure tenant; at least the tenant's family will have that insecurity when a tenant ceases to be the tenant of the house. That presumably will occur when a tenant dies.
It is only fair that such a tenant should be consulted about this very fundamental change in his status. However, while a transfer from a local authority landlord to Scottish Homes does not affect a tenant's secure tenancy, there are still strong reasons why that tenant should have the right to be consulted about such a transfer.
The Government have repeatedly emphasised that a major objective of their housing legislation is to give tenants more say and control over the running of their own homes. This objective can hardly be furthered if a situation exists whereby a tenant can be passed from one landlord to another without ever being consulted, or even informed— that is after the Secretary of State has given his original blessing to an acquisition by a private landlord.
While we are confident that local authorities will choose to consult their tenants over transfers, reliance on local authorities' discretion is no substitute for a clear statutory right to consultation. Therefore, we are concerned that without such a right to consultation, local authority tenants could be transferred, via Scottish Homes, to a private landlord without any consultation taking place at any stage. I wonder whether the Minister has given this matter the thought that I should expect of him, and whether he will consider reframing this provision. I know the amendment may be a little clumsy in the way it has been drafted, but nevertheless I beg to move it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the intention of this amendment is to require a local authority, if it disposes of tenanted houses to the SSHA or Scottish Homes, to go through the same statutory consultation with tenants as this schedule requires if it proposes to dispose of any of its stock to another private sector body. In practice, I believe that most local authorities would expect to consult tenants about such disposals in exactly the same way as if the sale proposed was, for example, to a housing association or to a private sector landlord. I am not unsympathetic to the noble Lord's purpose. However, I should like to draw his attention to Clause 129 on page 98 of the Bill. At line 33 reference is made to consultation being required with tenants who,
"as a result of the disposal cease to be secure tenants".

1787
Tenants who are transferred to SSHA or Scottish Homes when that body comes into being next year will continue to be secure tenants. That is important. Their rights as secure tenants will be identical to those they enjoyed as secure tenants of the local authority. There is no danger of loss of rights and therefore no such obvious need to protect the tenants' best interests by compelling the authority to consult them.
Moreover, given the wording of Clause 129, I am sure that the noble Lord— when he looks at it— will see that his amendment would be meaningless and therefore, we consider, defective. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, however, that the Secretary of State in considering any application by a local authority for approval to sell tenanted stock to Scottish Homes will take full account of the views of the tenants concerned before he reaches his decision.
With those assurances— first, that all tenants' existing rights will be continued and, secondly, that the Secretary of State will in practice wish to be sure that all tenants have been consulted— I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I believe that it is most important that the noble Lord reads Clause 129 and looks at the wording which says,
"to have regard to the views of tenants liable as a result of the disposal
to cease to be secure tenants (that is to say, tenants under secure tenancies)".
That wording appears at line 35 on page 98 of the Bill. With those assurances I hope that the noble Lord will consider that the matter has been covered.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was aware of the effect of Clause 129. I can understand the Minister's point of view. I think that I shall need to put a note in my copy of the Bill referring to the Minister's speech as it appears in Hansard for reassurance in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 162, line 31, at end insert ("and by a formal intimation of the result of the ballot carried out in accordance with that paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving Amendment No. 218 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 219 to 227. These amendments deal with a problem raised by tenants' associations, Shelter and many other bodies which spend their time dealing with the problems of housing. The main reason for the amendments is that the government proposals in the Bill requiring consultation by local authorities prior to disposals of stock, other than those initiated by tenants under the right to buy or tenants' choice, do not include statutory definitions of the information to be conveyed or a statutory obligation to conduct a ballot. The Secretary of State has issued guidelines and the criteria which he expects to apply.
A number of groups— in particular, Glasgow council tenants' association, representing a large number of tenants and a very responsible
1788
body— consider these matters of such importance that they should not be left merely to guidelines. I am sure that the Minister has studied the amendments and knows what they propose. I could speak for a very long time on the amendments. All cover the same theme and subject, namely the question of insecurity and the feeling of' the tenants that they want a Bill with belt and braces so that they do not have their houses taken away from them.
The amendments comprehend the requirements of the Glasgow council tenants' association, particularly the request for a ballot of the tenants affected. They do not seek to obtain greater protection than the Secretary of State has already suggested should be provided voluntarily by local authorities. If the Minister wishes I am happy to go through the amendments one by one, but I am sure that he must be aware of their intentions. We have discussed the subject at length over the years. I was fortunate to be able to discuss the amendments with one of the Minister's advisers earlier. While I was reassured on some points the fundamental issue is that the people who will be affected would like greater definition. They would like the position clarified and put in statute rather than have to rely on promises. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have studied the amendments closely. They amount to quite a large raft and I shall deal with them as best I can.
There is nothing in Schedule 15 which would prevent an authority formally balloting tenants to gauge opinion on a proposed large-scale disposal. Indeed, where a significant number of' houses are being considered for disposal to the private sector I and my colleagues would hope and expect authorities to take pains to undertake ballots in that way. Let us remember, however, that the provisions on consultation and on the need for the Secretary of State's approval will apply to all disposals of stock by local authorities voluntarily whether they involve one house. 100 houses, or indeed all of their stock. There seems little sense in requiring authorities to ballot one tenant about the sale of' one house. So long as the tenant is consulted and his views reported, the Secretary of State can judge whether, if the tenant is not against the disposal, the sale should proceed.
Similarly, there seems little sense in requiring local authorities formally to ballot tenants where the receiving private sector landlord is a fully mutual co-operative whose members are the tenants themselves. All members are tenants and all tenants are members.
Let me repeat my assurance that nothing in the new schedule prevents ballotting taking place. Moreover, because the Secretary of State will have power under Clause 128 of the Bill to take into account any matters which he considers relevant before giving his approval to a proposed disposal and to impose conditions on approvals given, he will in effect be able to insist on a formal ballot taking place if he is in any doubt as to the relevant tenants' views on the proposed disposal. I do not believe therefore that Amendments Nos. 218, 224, 224A, 225, 226, 226A and 227 are necessary.

1789
Let me also say a little about Amendments Nos. 219, 220 and 221, which would require on the face of the statute that tenants be given additional information on any proposed disposal. I believe that the extra information on tenure and rents suggested in Amendment No. 221 will in practice already be required by the wording of paragraph 3(2) of new Schedule 6A, which reads:
"The local authority shall serve notice in writing on the tenant informing him of …
(b) the likely consequences of the disposal for the tenant".
That would seem to me to cover such things as security of tenure and rent levels that any tenant could be expected to pay. We therefore feel that this amendment is not necessary.
However I do not believe that an authority or a prospective purchaser should be obliged to disclose to the tenants the price of the sales negotiated or the means of financing the purchase. Those are matters of commercial confidence between the buyer and the seller in which in my view the tenant does not have a legitimate interest. Therefore I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 219 and 220.
Nor do I think that Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 would be helpful. I believe that there already exists in the provisions of the new Schedule 6A an ample requirement and the opporunity for the tenant to be fully informed and to make representations both to the disposing authority and to the Secretary of State. In my view further rounds of consultation and representation would risk unreasonable delays in the disposal process. Therefore I cannot recommend that these amendments be accepted.
Perhaps I can offer a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I have looked very carefully through all these amendments and there is one area in which I believe the noble Lord has hit on a situation to which I may be able to agree. I think that the additional wording suggested in Amendment No. 222, which would ensure that tenants had at least 28 days to respond to the local authority on the initial round of consultation, would be a useful addition to the Bill. I am happy therefore to recommend to the House that Amendment No. 222 be agreed, on the understanding of course that I cannot accept the other amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, at this stage of the Bill it is always nice to have something accepted, although the Minister must agree that it is a small concession. However, it may very well be an important one for many tenants.
In the course of his remarks the Minister suggested that the Secretary of State would be aware of the views of tenants before disposal. I should like to know how he will be made aware of them. It has been suggested in the amendments that there should be a ballot which would allow the Secretary of State to learn the views of the tenants. Moreover, if the Minister will look at Amendment No. 226A, he will see that even if the ballot were against the disposal, there is still no guarantee that the Secretary of State would not wish to go ahead with the disposal or give consent to go ahead with it.
1790
Given the fact that we are not happy with the Bill as a whole, it seems that the present intention of the Minister is based on great hope and faith that it will solve some of our housing problems and the wish not to make the housing situation any more difficult than it already is.
From representations that I have received, it is very clear that there is unease among tenants about the change of landlord. It is not just a case of "Rather the devil you know than the devil you don't". As I tried to say earlier, the whole history of Scottish housing and landlordism does not give them a feeling of security in that respect. There are many criticisms of the local authorities and the SSHA. Nevertheless if one speaks to Scottish tenants it appears that there are few private landlords who give the same feeling of security as do those organisations.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what he will do with his amendments, I should like to point out that the local authority must report to the Secretary of State the views of the tenants. I should have thought that if there were a number of tenants—or a few gathered together—who decided that they did not like the idea of change, there is absolutely no reason why they should not first write to the local authority and, if that body does not present their views, as it is required to do, to the Secretary of State. There is always redress.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his further comments and I shall read them with great care. We are at the very last stage of the Bill but these amendments were submitted largely by very good and interested bodies and I shall consult with them and take advice. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 218.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 219 to 221 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 163, line 5, after ("notice") insert ("which must be at least 28 days after the service of the notice").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 not moved.]
Clause 130 [Application of capital money to meet costs of disposals of land]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 99, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) In section 72 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (expenditure which authorities may make), in subsection (7) (net capital receipts for any year defined as the receipts which are capital receipts for the purposes of Part VIII of that Act, reduced by certain payments) after the words "reduced by" there shall be inserted—

"(a) any amount of capital money which in that year is applied for the purpose specified in section 430(3) of the Housing Act 1985 (meeting administrative costs of and incidental to certain disposals of land); and

(b)".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 130 of the Bill clarifies that local authorities may properly use

1791
their capital receipts from the sale of houses to cover the administrative costs of sales. It is intended to help local authorities who have difficulty in funding their right to buy programme from their revenue budget. This amendment was welcomed by noble Lords opposite when we moved its inclusion at Committee stage.
We said then that a further technical amendment would be necessary in order to ensure that where a local authority uses its receipts in this way the money is not also counted as a capital receipt for the purposes of the capital control system.
Amendment No. 228 does this by amending the definition of net capital receipts in Section 72 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which permits an authority over time to enhance its capital allocation by the amount of its receipts. Without this amendment a local authority could effectively spend the capital receipt twice by both using it to meet the costs of sale and by counting it towards its capital allocation. The amendment nets off the money for the purposes of the capital expenditure calculation. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side fully understand and appreciate the amendment and are grateful for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 229:
After Clause 130, insert the following new clause:
("Elderly and disabled persons.
—(1) This section shall apply to a Housing Action Trust under Part III of this Act or any landlord acquiring property from a public sector landlord under Part IV of this Act.
(2) Any landlord as defined in subsection (I) above shall ensure that—

(a) any service provided specifically to meet the needs of elderly persons by the former public sector landlord; and

(b) any service provided specifically to meet the needs of disabled persons

continues to be provided following the acquisition of any property by such a landlord.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) above shall be met either—

(a)through the direct provision of the service by the landlord as defined in subsection (I) above, or

(b) by arrangement with the former public sector landlord or the relevant statutory authority.

(4) The Secretary of State or the Housing Corporation, as the case may be, shall be under a duty to ensure that adequate arrangements have been made by the landlord to meet his duty under subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 229, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. There is an error on the Marshalled List. Between the words "Housing" and "Trust"
The word "Action" should be inserted. It should read: "a Housing Action Trust".
The Minister and his advisers will be well aware of what we are seeking to achieve in this debate. It is almost unique because we have not debated this at any earlier stage of the Bill. To some extent that stands out because we have had to canter over the
1792
course again with most of the amendments that we have been debating.
The debates that we have had tonight and at other times on the needs of the disabled and elderly show the clear concern of the House. I can assure the Minister that this applies throughout the country, as is shown by representations to us by various associations. These include areas such as, first, housing benefit entitlement; secondly, the right to buy; and, thirdly, the succession rights. We do not wish to go over those grounds in detail. However, we are concerned about the important issue of the provision of services to the elderly and to disabled people, whether it he of wardens and other welfare staff, caretakers, home helps, meals on wheels, adaptations to the home, and so on. Many authorities which are well known to the Minister and to ourselves have developed progressive approaches in these services. Wish to be assured by the Minister that new landlords who take over the homes of elderly and disabled people are under a duty to ensure that such services are provided.
The Minister may point out to us that the clause is widely drawn in order to allow for that. It does not put onerous or inappropriate duties on the new landlord. Subsection (3)(a) allows for an agreement to be reached with the current providers to continue to provide such services. Subsection (4) places the duty on the Minister or the corporation to ensure that the necessary arrangements have been made to meet the duty.
The Minister may refer either to the provisions regarding the Secretary of State's consent, in the case of HATs, or the approval criteria in the case of approved landlords. We would argue that the elderly and disabled need a statutory safeguard to allay their fears and to reassure them that by transferring they will not lose other services. At this late stage in the Bill we are not arguing basic princples. We are arguing about the care and concern to ensure that the Bill is less deleterious than it might otherwise be. Can the Minister give some assurances along the lines that I am seeking in this amendment? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is right that there might be some property occupied by the elderly or disabled within proposed HAT areas, or areas where landlords put forward proposals under the provisions of Part IV of this Bill. In the case of HATs, as I have already explained on a number of occasions, careful thought will be given in consultation with local authorities about the very best options for the tenants.
On Part IV acquisitions, I have already gone a long way to ensure that approved landlords give full weight to the needs of special groups. All landlords will have to sign the tenants' guarantee, which would require them to inform tenants about their policies for meeting the requirements of tenants or their family members who become disabled and to have regard to the needs of special groups in their allocation policies. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will recall that I gave a commitment last night to ensure that the applicant's policy towards adaptations for the disabled will be

1793
included in the list of matters about which the tenants must be informed at the consultation stage. All commitments made at that stage will of course be contractually binding.
There is really nothing between the noble Lord and ourselves on this basis. We both want these special groups to be looked after. We are doing it in slightly different ways but I believe that we shall get the same result in the end.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I shall not delay the House, but all that he has said is that what will be laid down must be complied with. I am reminded of other situations where people will set out their stall, which will look most attractive. They promise to do this, that and the other and the Minister will satisfy himself that this is the bill of sale which the Lew landlord is putting forward and that it is acceptable. But what do the Minister and his advisers intend to do subsequently if it turns out that the tenants, whether they were willing or not, have bought a pig in a poke in regard to the delivery of what the Minister wants in terms of looking after the elderly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we covered this ground very fully yesterday when we discussed it on HATs. I recall the discussion well. Right at the beginning we shall be seeking to make sure that the right landlords are properly vetted by the Housing Corporation. We hope that very few occasions will arise where a landlord does not live up to the high standards that will be required of such landlords, but I believe this has been well covered.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He and the corporation know that their reputations and political integrity are on the line. I am sure that they will want to ensure that this procedure is a success. To that extent I had forgotten, but the Minister reminds me so often. It will not be in the interests of the Minister or of the corporation if there is a shoal of objections. Not only will the publicity be detrimental but the political credibility of the Minister, who has said as much as he can on this matter, will be on the line. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 230:
After Clause 131, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of Trusts and Landlords.
. In the case of a Housing Action Trust established under Part 111 of this Act or a landlord approved under section 93 the Secretary of State or the Housing Corporation as may be the case shall ensure that all Trusts so established and all landlords so approved—

(i) participate in such new and existing local, regional and national tenants' exchange schemes and housing mobility schemes as is practicable; and

(ii) put on display and make available upon requests such leaflets, forms and lists as are relevant to each scheme; and

(iii) published each scheme in the locality and amongst tenants in particular; and

(iv) create a term in every tenancy for a dwelling house which allows the tenant, with the written consent of the landlord, to assign the tenancy by way of exchange with another tenant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment again concerns housing action trusts, this time with the complete title in the printed version. It is something that we have not discussed in your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether it was discussed in another place. It is surprising, because it seems such an obvious point. It is in the interests not only of tenants but, I should have thought, of the housing action trusts themselves and any subsequent landlords to maintain the National Tenants' Exchange Scheme and the National Mobility Scheme. These schemes have never been a matter of party political controversy. It has always been thought that as far as possible they should be promoted by publicity and by effective contact between tenants in different areas who want or need to move and who need this additional flexibility.
I do not imagine that there is any disagreement about the desirability of seeing that these schemes are maintained, even when public sector housing in the original sense is being diminished, because the same difficulties apply to housing action trusts as landlords and indeed to other approved landlords as apply to local authorities. In many ways the situation is more severe because, unless there are certain safeguards, moving means the loss of certain rights of security of tenancy and possibly of security of the existing controlled rent. These are risks to which we could have paid more attention, perhaps while we were considering the earlier parts of the Bill. However, there is much agreement about these mobility schemes and it clearly must be desirable that they should be maintained and if possible extended. We hope that the amendment will find favour with the Government and with the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I also recognise the benefit of mobility schemes; but we consider that the current voluntary arrangements have worked effectively. At present, we see no reason to introduce statutory provisions. I was wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had a different view and I was expecting him to give a catalogue showing where the voluntary arrangements had not worked so well and why one needed a statutory scheme. I do not think that that section of his argument was at the front of his mind when he proposed the amendment.
Furthermore, Clause 82 of the Bill brings HAT secure tenants within Parts IV and V of the Housing Act 1985 and means that they will have the right to exchange under the Act. We want to encourage HATs to participate in the various voluntary schemes which exist and we shall do so under the management guidance issued to HATs so that they too will be able to benefit from the existing current voluntary arrangements.
Where tenants transfer under the HATs choice provisions, or out of HATs, many of them will go to housing associations which will already be participating in the voluntary housing association liaison organisation or national mobility office schemes. The proposed tenants' guarantee also encourages new landlords to participate in mobility and exchange schemes. Where tenants transfer to landlords other than housing associations we would not want to impose a statutory requirement on them

1795
to participate in such schemes. But in approving such landlords the Housing Corporation will be looking for similar standards to those it expects from housing associations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that those who organise the schemes, and even more so those who take advantage of them, will be glad to know of the Minister's words of support for the schemes and the extent to which the Bill encourages them to be extended to housing action trusts as they apply to housing associations.
I think that it is a relatively minor matter as to whether we agree or disagree about how far the matter should be placed on the face of the Bill. However, we recognise that the Government have the right intentions and that there are provisions in the Bill to secure some of what we want. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 231:
After Clause 131, insert the following new clause:
("Race relations.
—(1) Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 shall apply to the following bodies—

(i) the Housing Corporation,

(ii) a Housing Association or Housing Co-operative,

(iii) a Housing Action Trust,

(iv) an approved landlord pursuant to Part IV of this Act,

(v) a landlord acquiring housing stock from a local authority pursuant to section 43 of the Housing Act 1985.

(2) A code of practice for rented housing established by the Commission for Racial Equality under section 47 of the Race Relations Act 1976 shall apply to those bodies or persons set out in subsection (1)(i) to (1)(v) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter is not new to the House; but, unusually, in moving a similar amendment to that which we moved in Committee, we are extending rather than reducing its scope. When we moved the amendment in Committee, we were glad to learn that the Government are proposing that Section 71 of the Race Relations Act should apply to the Housing Corporation and housing action trusts.
The principal disagreement that we had and that we still have with the Government relates to housing associations, approved landlords and landlords acquiring housing stock on voluntary disposal. At that time the Minister argued that it would be inappropriate to apply Section 71 of the Race Relations Act to a large number of very small bodies with a relatively narrow range of activities. It is true that a large number of housing associations are small bodies, but there are 430 of them with more than 100 properties. That is not insignificant and in our view it would justify the Race Relations Act being applied to them.
If the principle is accepted in respect of the Housing Corporation and housing action trusts, we believe that it is applicable to the larger housing associations. There are seven associations with more than 10,000 proper ties and 104 with between 1,000 and 10,000 properties. They are by no means small organisations. They are as large as many local
1796
housing authorities and they are certainly as large as many of the individual housing action trusts would be. In the spirit of the Race Relations Act, surely the Government would wish to have the larger housing associations and approved landlords included in the provisions of the Act. If the Government again reject this amendment on the grounds that it deals with organisations which are too small—and I see that argument—is the Minister able to say how he proposes that the Act should cover these other landlords which have a public responsibility, even if they are not in the strictly defined public sector? If the Minister cannot do that, it looks as if the Race Relations Act needs amending in order to provide for it. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 at present applies only to local authorities, and requires them to carry out their various duties with a view to ensuring that unlawful discrimination is eliminated, and that equal opportunity and good race relations are promoted in their areas.
Noble Lords opposite would wish us to go further and apply Section 71 to individual associations, coops, tenants' choice landlords and those taking over council housing under voluntary local authority disposals. We are not persuaded that this would be appropriate. There is a strong promotional flavour to Section 71 so that bodies to which it applies have a duty not only to perform their own functions in a non-discriminatory way but to take wider steps to secure good race relations and equal opportunities. This is not something we would think it right to impose on bodies often small and voluntary in nature, with a relatively narrow range of activities.
That is not of course to say that we consider it unimportant for these landlords, or others, to conduct their affairs in a just and non-discriminatory fashion. They are already subject to provisions in the 1976 Act which make it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of services and accommodation and the granting of membership. Registered associations and co-ops and tenants' choice landlords will be subject to oversight by the Housing Corporation, which will be operating with the strengthened responsibility for ensuring non-discriminatory behaviour which the Bill gives it. The corporation will in particular be requiring landlords under the tenants' guarantee to observe housing codes issued by the Commission for Racial Equality.
Amendment No. 231 also seeks to apply codes issued by the Commission for Racial Equality to the Housing Corporation and the other bodies listed. This is quite superfluous as such codes, with the extra statutory backing we are proposing under Clause 131, are already applicable to the whole field of rented housing. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl to think again about that. By definition the effect of this Act will be that there will be far less local authority housing available than there has been in the past and

1797
that this is an area in which there is some protection given to members of ethnic minorities. It is well known that failure to obtain decent housing has been one of the most serious elements in race relations in this country. If the housing accommodation covered by this legislation is to be reduced in this way, as it will be unless the obligations of the Act are explained to the new housing groups, it is extremely probable that members of the ethnic minorities who on research evidence have fared pretty badly in the housing sphere will fare worse in the future. Will the Government please think again?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Baroness is well known for her sympathy for and understanding of racial equality. That also is the Government's point of view. I listened carefully to what she said. Of course I take much interest in the matter and consideration will be given to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that reply is totally unsatisfactory. The noble Earl has neither answered the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, nor has he answered the point I made that there are a significant number of large housing associations with the scope and responsibilities comparable to local housing authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that in effect, as the amount of public sector housing, strictly defined, declines and if nothing is done to extend Section 71 of the Race Relations Act, the effectiveness of the Act will he diminished. Something must be done to preserve the position.
The noble Earl made no attempt to answer that. He was polite to the noble Baroness but did not do her the courtesy of answering the point she made. He made no attempt to depart from his brief, which had been written before I introduced the amendment. I do not think that is good enough. The noble Earl should take the opportunity I am about to give him to recognise that new points have been raised in the debate on this amendment which he should take away for further consideration.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no discourtesy whatever was meant to the noble Baroness and I am sure she will appreciate that. I understand the point she made. She suggested that the Government should think again. However, perhaps I may answer the question slightly more deeply and say that we have taken the view that the responsibilities of Section 71 should be taken on board not only by local authorities but by other bodies with the responsibility for overseeing the provision of housing. That is why we have incorporated Clauses 56 and 63(5) in the Bill, which apply Section 71 to the Housing Corporation and housing action trusts respectively.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested that it should be possible to apply Section 71 to larger housing associations. However, we do not think that it is possible to discriminate between large and small bodies of a given class under Section 71. I hope that he will understand that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I comprehend what the noble Earl said but I do not
1798
understand it or agree with it. It is possible to discriminate between large and small in a given class. It happens all the time; it happens in legislation and in life. I do not see any difficulty whatever.
However, the noble Earl has at least now made an attempt to answer the points raised in the debate and I thank him for that. The amendment must be withdrawn because it is defective in the sense that it refers equally to the very smallest housing associations; but I am not at all sure that we will not challenge the Government by bringing back this matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 16 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 232A:
Page 170, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
(".—(1) In Schedule 4A to that Act (which is set out in Schedule 4 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and excludes certain shared ownership leases from Part I of the 1967 Act) at the end of paragraph 2(1) there shall be added "or to a person who acquired that interest in exercise of the right conferred by Part IV of the Housing Act 1988".
(2) In paragraph 2(2) of that Schedule, at the end of paragraph (c) there shall he added the following paragraph—
"(1) a housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988".")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that where a shared ownership lease granted by a local authority or similar body is excluded from the provisions of Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, it continues to be excluded if the property transfers to a tenants' choice landlord.
We cannot claim it to be a provision of great importance. Its aim is simply to ensure that on this matter the effect of transfer to a new landlord is neutral. It does not extend the exclusion to new leases granted by the tenants' choice landlord. We believe that it should not give your Lordships any difficulty and in those circumstances, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 232B:
Page 170, line 33, at end insert—
("The Consumer Credit Act 1974
. In section 16 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (exempt agreements), in subsection (6B), in paragraph (a) after the words "England and Wales," there shall he inserted "the Housing Corporation, Housing for Wales and",").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to permit the Housing Corporation to continue to be, and enable Housing for Wales to become, a housing authority for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This means that mortgages where either of these bodies are the creditor will be exempt agreements under the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 171, line 17, at end insert—
("The Protection from Eviction Act 1977
. In section 7 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (service of notices), in subsection (3)(c) (certain licensors treated as landlords for the purposes of the section) the words "under a restricted contract (within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977)" shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 243. These are simply consequential amendments which remove the reference to restricted contracts from Section 7 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The effect is to extend the meaning of "landlord" under that Act to include someone who was granted a licence to occupy accommodation. This change reflects the new rights which the Bill gives to licensees in respect of protection from eviction. The 1977 Act will of course continue to apply to restricted contracts while they remain in existence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 233ZA:
Page 172, line 47, at end insert—
("the Local Government Act 1985
. In section 101 of the Local Government Act 1985 (power by order to make incidental, consequential. etc. provisions) in subsection (1)(b) after second "Act" insert "or the Housing Act 1988".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trafford moved Amendment No. 233ZB:
Page 173, line 10, at end insert—
(". In section 155 of that Act (repayment of discount on early disposal) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection,—
"(3A) Where a secure tenant has served on his landlord an operative notice of delay, as defined in section I 53A,—

(a) the three years referred to in subsection (2) shall begin from a date which precedes the date of the conveyance of the freehold or grant of the lease by a period equal to the time (or, if there is more than one such notice, the aggregate of the times) during which, by virtue of section I 53B, any payment of rent falls to be taken into account in accordance wtih subsection (3) of that section; and

(b) any reference in subsection (3) (other than paragraph (a) thereof) to the acquisition of the tenant's initial share shall be construed as a reference to a date which precedes that acquisition by the period referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is what I would describe as a fair-play amendment. Clause 120 is designed to give fair play to council tenants who have applied to exercise the right to buy their homes but who have met with delays on the part of the landlord. The tenant is able under the clause to serve notice on the landlord complaining that he is holding up the sale, and it will then be up to the landlord either to defend this or remedy the delay: otherwise the tenant will be entitled to a deduction from the purchase price.
I welcome this part of the provision, which will give practical help to tenants who in some areas may face quite long and frustrating waits before they own their own home. But it does not deal with a particular consequence of a delayed sale. Your Lordships will be aware that a tenant exercising the right to buy his or her home at a discount is required to undertake to pay back the discount if the property is sold within
1800
three years, and the amount of the discount goes down by a third each year.
It is not difficult to see that if the sale under the right to buy has been held up, the period of three years actually becomes in a sense artificially prolonged. Whatever the reason may be, the former tenant's liability to 'repay will continue for much longer than it should. It is this that I would describe as unfair. There may be after all pressing reasons why at the time of sale the former tenant wishes to move— for example, employment— and this may involve not only job prospects but also his family.
The amendment is therefore designed to shorten the period during which discount may have to be repaid if the sale under the right to buy was in fact held up. It provides that where a tenant exercising the right to buy has served notices on the landlord, and rent in respect of the period of delay has been deducted from the purchase price, the start of the three-year discount repayment period is to be backdated by the period of the delay. If the tenant has had to invoke the delay procedure more than once before the sale is completed, the separate periods of delay will be added up for this purpose. I would describe this as a relatively simple and straightforward amendment which I think gives reasonable fair play to the former tenant in the event of a sale, and I hope that it commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to my noble friend, and the more I listened to him the more I thought that in equity he had a good point and was right. When the discount repayment provisions were introduced they were intended to provide a short-term limitation on a purchaser's freedom to dispose of his property in order to discourge tenants from buying simply in order to realise a quick cash profit. I recognise that this can bear unfavourably on tenants whose right-to-buy purchase has already been delayed by the landlord, and this amendment will allow the repayment period to be backdated in such cases. I am happy to accept my noble friend's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 233ZC:
Page 174, line 17, at end insert—
("49A. In section 429A of that Act (housing management: financial assistance etc.) in subsection (2), in paragraph (a) after the words "secure tenancies)" there shall he inserted "or subsection (2A)" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Subsection (2)(a) applies to the following bodies—

(a) the Housing Corporation;

(b) Housing for Wales;

(c) a housing trust which is a charity;

(d) a registered housing association other than a co-operative housing association; and

(e) an unregistered housing association which is a cooperative housing association."

49B. In section 434 of that Act (index of defined expressions for Part XIII) there shall be inserted, in the appropriate places in alphabetical order, the following entries:

"charity

section 622"

"co-operative housing association

section 5(2)"

"housing association

section 5(1)"

"housing trust

section 6".")

49C. In section 450A of that Act (right to a loan in certain cases after exercise of right to buy) in subsection (6), in the definition of "housing authority" for the words from "housing association" onwards there shall be substituted "registered housing association other than a co-operative housing association and any unregistered housing association which is a co-operative housing association; and".
49D. In section 450B of that Act (power to make loans in other cases) in subsection (4), in the definition of "housing authority" for the words from "housing association" onwards there shall be substituted "registered housing association other than a cooperative housing association and any unregistered housing association which is a co-operative housing association; and".
49E. In section 459 of that Act (index of defined expressions for Part XIV) after the entry relating to "building society" there shall be inserted—
"co-operative housing association section 5(2)".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 233ZC. As your Lordships will realise, the Bill removes housing associations from Section 80 of the Housing Act, which lists the bodies whose tenants are normally secure tenants. Certain other provisions of the Act refer to Section 80 landlords, and the effect of the Bill would be to remove housing associations from the scope of these provisions. We think that that is wrong, and the amendment therefore restores the status quo.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 233A to 234 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 176, line 22, at end insert—
("62A. In section 16 of that Act (sequestration in Scotland of defendant), in subsection (2)(b) for the words "under subsection (6) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "under subsection (10) of section 31 of that Act or subsection (6) of the said section 32 of that Act",").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 207. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 177, leave Out lines 25 to 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 177, line 41, at end insert—
("72A. In section 33 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (sequestration of person holding realisable property), in subsection (2)(b) for the words "under subsection (6) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "under subsection (10) of section 31 of that Act or subsection (6) of the said section 32 of that Act.".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 177, line 42, leave out ("the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987") and insert ("that Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 178, line 5, at end insert—
("74A. In section 85 of that Act (sequestration in Scotland of defendant), in subsection 2(b) for the words "under subsection (6) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "under subsection (10) of section 31 of that Act or subsection (6) of the said section 32 of that Act".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 178, line 5, at end insert—
("The Housing (Scotland) Act 1988
. In section 19 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession)—

(a) in subsection (2) for the word "is" there shall be substituted the words "and particulars of it are";

(b) in subsection (3) after the word "one" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words "in the prescribed form".

. In section 36 of that Act (damages for unlawful eviction)—

(a) in subsection (2) for the word "calculated" there shall be substituted the word "likely";

(b) in subsection (7)(b)—

(i) after the word "or. where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words "the doing of acts or";

(ii) after the word "for" there shall be inserted the words "doing the acts or".

. In section 38 of that Act (further offence of harassment)—

(a) for the words from "In section 22" to "after subsection (2)" there shall be substituted the words—

"(1) Subsection (2) of section 22 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier) shall, as respects acts done after the commencement of this section, have effect with the substitution of the word 'likely" for the word "calculated".

(2) After that subsection";

(b) after "(2A)" there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (2B) below";

(c) for the word "calculated" there shall be substituted the word "likely";

(d) the words "subject to subsection (2B) below" and "by reason only of conduct falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection" shall cease to have effect;

(e) after the word "for" where it second occurs there shall be inserted the words "doing the acts or".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 178, line 5, at end insert—
(". In section 36 of that Act (damages for unlawful eviction)—

(a) in subsection (6), for the words "proceedings are begun to enforce the liability" there shall be substituted the words "the date on which the proceedings to enforce the liability are finally decided"; and

(b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6)(a) above, proceedings to enforce a liability are finally decided—

(a) if no appeal may be made against the decision in these proceedings;

(b) if an appeal may be made against the decision with leave and the time limit for applications for leave expires and either no application has been made or leave has been refused;

(c) if leave to appeal against the decision is granted or is not required and no appeal is made within the time limit for appeals; or

(d) if an appeal is made but is abandoned before it is determined.

(6B) If, in proceedings to enforce a liability arising by
virtue of subsection (3) above, it appears to the court—

(a) that, prior to the event which gave rise to the liability, the conduct of the former residential occupier or any person living with him in the premises concerned was such that it is reasonable to mitigate the damages for which the landlord would otherwise be liable. or

1803

(b) that, before the proceedings were begun, the landlord offered to reinstate the former residential occupier in the premises in question and either it was unreasonable of the former residential occupier to refuse that offer or, if he had obtained alternative accommodation before the offer was made, it would have been unreasonable of him to refuse that offer if he had not obtained that accommodation.

the court may reduce the amount of damages which would otherwise be payable by such amount as it thinks appropriate.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Enactments repealed:]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 242A:
Page 181, line 4, at beginning insert—

("14 & 15 Geo VI c. 65.

The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of
Civil Interests) Act 1951.

Section 18(2).")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment provides for repeals consequential on other amendments made in Committee and earlier on Report. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 182, line 24. at end insert—

("1977 c. 43.

The Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

In section 7(3)(c) the words from "under" to "1977)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 243A:
Page 182, line 44, column 3, leave out ("onwards") and insert ("to "charity or'', the words "having association or" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 243B not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 182, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

("Paragraphs 6 and 8.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 209. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should point out that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 245. The figure "1" after "lines" should be deleted and substituted by "2".
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 184, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 11 and insert—

("Section 4(21)(a)(ii).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 184, line 17, column 3, at end insert ("In section 38, the words "subject to subsection (2B) below" and "by reasons only of conduct falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness moved The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.246A:
Page 184, line 25, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("coming into force of Part I").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 246B:
Page 184, line 30, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("coming into force of Part I").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 246C:
Page 184, line 35, leave out from ("1985") to ("within") in line 37 and insert—

("(a) have effect (subject to section 35(4) of this Act) in relation to any tenancy or licence entered into before the coming into force of Part I of this Act unless, immediately before that time, the landlord or. as the case may be, the licensor is a body which, in accordance with the repeals, would cease to be within the said section 80; and

(b) do not have effect in relation to a tenancy or licence entered into on or after the coming into force of Part I of this Act if the tenancy or licence falls").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 184, line 37, leave out ("(a) to (e)") and insert ("(c) to (f").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 100, line 18, after ("sections") insert ("[Amendment of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987]").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 100, line 23, after ("sections") insert ("[Amendment of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987]").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 100, line 24, after ("128") insert ("[Consent required for certain subsequent disposals]").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 100, line 24, after ("128,") insert ("[Consent required for certain subsequent disposals: Scotland],").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 100, line 31, after ("sections") insert ("[Certain tenancies excluded from debtor's estate: Scotland],").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 100, line 31, after ("128,") insert ("[Consent required for certain subsequent disposals: Scotland],").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as this is the last amendment after four solid days of the Report stage

1805
of the Housing Bill, I should like to express my thanks to all the staff who have helped us and to all noble Lords who have participated. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we should like to be associated with the thanks just expressed by the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with another amendment agreed to with an amendment; with a consequential amendment to the Bill; and with the remaining amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof; the Commons amendments were order to printed.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.