Housing Bill

HL Deb 27 October 1988 vol 500 cc1764-805

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 125.

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 (6B) Guidance issued under this section may be revised or withdrawn but, before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such bodies who appear to him to be representative of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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) that they are not satisfied that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or
2. (b) that they are not satisfied that he has a priorty need, or
3. (c) that they arc satisfied that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or
4. (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

1. (a) their decision on the question whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness;
2. (b) their decision on the question whether he has a priority need;
3. (c) their decision whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally;
4. (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 —

1. (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
2. (ii) any fact relied on by the applicant and set out in the applicant's Notice of Appeal; and
3. (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 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 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 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 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?

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 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— 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—

1. (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
2. (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
3. (c) the disposal is an exempted disposal under section 39 of this Act; or
4. (d) the disposal is to a landlord approved by the Housing Corporation under section 93 of the Housing Act 1988; or
5. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (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
4. (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 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)—

1. (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;
2. (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
3. (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)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—

1. (a) granting or disposing of any interest in property;
2. (b) entering into a contract to dispose of property or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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". 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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—

1. "(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
2. (b)".").

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

1. (a) any service provided specifically to meet the needs of elderly persons by the former public sector landlord; and
2. (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—

1. (a)through the direct provision of the service by the landlord as defined in subsection (I) above, or
2. (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 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 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 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—

1. (i) participate in such new and existing local, regional and national tenants' exchange schemes and housing mobility schemes as is practicable; and
2. (ii) put on display and make available upon requests such leaflets, forms and lists as are relevant to each scheme; and
3. (iii) published each scheme in the locality and amongst tenants in particular; and
4. (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 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 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—

1. (i) the Housing Corporation,
2. (ii) a Housing Association or Housing Co-operative,
3. (iii) a Housing Action Trust,
4. (iv) an approved landlord pursuant to Part IV of this Act,
5. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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,—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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—

1. (a) the Housing Corporation;
2. (b) Housing for Wales;
3. (c) a housing trust which is a charity;
4. (d) a registered housing association other than a co-operative housing association; and
5. (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 Haringeymoved 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 Caithnessmoved Amendment No. 236: Page 177, leave Out lines 25 to 35.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved 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 Haringeymoved 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 Haringeymoved 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)—

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

1. (a) in subsection (2) for the word "calculated" there shall be substituted the word "likely";
2. (b) in subsection (7)(b)—
   1. (i) after the word "or. where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words "the doing of acts or";
   2. (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)—

1. (a) for the words from "In section 22" to "after subsection (2)" there shall be substituted the words—
   1. "(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. (2) After that subsection";
2. (b) after "(2A)" there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (2B) below";
3. (c) for the word "calculated" there shall be substituted the word "likely";
4. (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;
5. (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 moved Amendment No. 242:

Page 178, line 5, at end insert— (". In section 36 of that Act (damages for unlawful eviction)—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) if no appeal may be made against the decision in these proceedings;
2. (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;
3. (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
4. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 246C: Page 184, line 35, leave out from ("1985") to ("within") in line 37 and insert—

1. ("(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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.