Local Government and Housing Bill

HL Deb 10 October 1989 vol 511 cc149-292

3.17 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Reay).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 98 [Grants for improvements and repairs]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 138C: Page 93, line 27, after ("required") insert ("(a)").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138D, 138E, 138F, 144J, 144M, 144N, 1440,144P, 144Q, 144R, 144S, 144V, 144Z, 144AA, 152H, 153A, 153B, 153C, 161C, 161E, 163C, 163D, 163E, 163F, 163G, 164A, 164C, 164D, 164E, 169B and 171A.

This new clause and the associated amendments introduce a new houses in multiple occupation grant, otherwise known as the HMO grant. They set out the new HMO grant conditions and establish the circumstances in which it may be paid. Later on we shall be discussing the other important changes that we are making to the control of HMOs at Amendment No. 177X, which I understand is likely to be discussed tomorrow. This group of amendments concerns only the grant.

I should like to describe how the new grant works. It will be a single grant which a landlord may apply for to repair or improve an HMO or to provide one by conversion or to do works which he is required to carry out by the local authority. It replaces special grant which is currently available for works under Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 and Section 366 which concerned means of escape from fire.

The new grant will be payable in circumstances in which it was not possible to get grant before. It will be available to bring an HMO up to the new standards of fitness for human habitation and to the new HMO fitness standards, which we shall be discussing later and which will cover fire precautions and means of escape from fire. However, grant will not be available for works required by the fire authorities under legislation other than housing legislation. It will be available for repairs, for additional improvements such as thermal insulation, for HMOs participating in group repair schemes and for work to convert a property into an HMO.

HMOs are therefore eligible for grant across a far wider range of works than they were before. As with the other grants in this part of the Bill, where the applicant is a landlord, it will be available on a mandatory basis only where notice is served, and otherwise at local authorities' discretion. The single grant will encourage authorities and landlords to consider as a whole the works required to put a property into good order. Since there are no longer different grants attracting different rates of Exchequer support, authorities will take the action that is best for the property rather than the action which costs them the least.

Amendments Nos. 164A to 164E provide that a landlord of an HMO may be eligible as an assisted participant in a group repair scheme.

The conditions are similar to those which apply to a renovation grant awarded to a landlord: the applicant must certify that he is the owner of the HMO; the property must be occupied for five years under tenancies or licences by people not related to the owner; the owner, and if necessary people living in the house, must provide evidence as necessary on demand by the authority to show how that condition is being fulfilled. The owner must not overcrowd the property. If the local authority issues a direction order under Section 354 of the Housing Act 1985 limiting the numbers in it and that order is not subsequently revoked, or if the owner breaches any of the other conditions of the grant, the authority may demand that some or all of the grant is repaid. The owner must repay the grant if he disposes of the property other than by an exempt disposal. Each of the conditions of the grant is a local land charge for five years.

These conditions provide sensible restraints to ensure that the new HMO grant is not abused, and is established on a similar basis to the other new grants.

In summary the current situation is that there is a special grant. That is repealed by Clause 98(5) and Schedule 11. The Bill therefore at present provides no grants for HMO. The amendments about which I have been speaking, and which I hope the Committee will accept, extend the special grant on to a wider basis. It is thus better for all concerned and I hope that it will be widely welcomed. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for his careful exposition of this very complex series of amendments. The Government will know that we are unhappy about substantial parts of the new proposals for housing improvement grants, and we shall be coming on to those matters as we deal with subsequent amendments.

However, one area in which we are substantially in agreement with the Government is that of grants for housing in multiple occupation. It has had a chequered history over the years. Attempts to apply the grants procedures to housing in multiple occupation have been made in a number of legislative forums, the last in Part XV of the Housing Act 1985. All of them have proved to be defective in considerable detail.

I very much hope that the proposals which are now before the Committee and which appear on the face of it to be simpler and more rational than some of the proposals that we have had before will be more successful than earlier attempts. It certainly would be a grave dereliction of duty if Parliament did not make available substantial improvement grants for housing in multiple occupation. All the evidence from house condition surveys has been that it is housing in multiple occupation which contains some of the worst physical conditions of housing in this country.

We wish these amendments success. We hope that they are the final version that the Government will put before us in this Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 138D: Page 93, line 28, leave out ("and") and insert ("houses in multiple occupation or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 138E to 138G:

Page 93, line 29, after ("and") insert ("(b)").

Page 93, line 29, after ("dwellings") insert ("or houses in multiple occupation").

Page 93, line 30, after ("and") insert ("(c)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

moved Amendment No. 138H: Page 93, line 31, at end insert ("and in common parts of building containing one or more flats"). The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 138H is the first in a series of some 40 government amendments which deal with common parts grants for the repair and improvement of the common parts—for example, staircases and roofs—of buildings containing flats. In speaking to this amendment, I should therefore like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138K, 142A to C, 144A to H, 144K, 144T and U, 144GG, 144MM to QQ, 152C to G, 152J, 153D and E, 161D, F and G, 163A, 169A, 169C and D, 170B, 170E, 171B to D and 172A.

Although Clause 98 refers to common parts grant, the Bill as drafted does not make full provision for these grants. In many cases the requirements laid down in Part VIII are inappropriate in relation to works to common parts and could not be met, particularly so because the provisions are cast in terms of dwellings and an interest in dwellings, whereas common parts are of course not dwellings. By far the majority of the amendments are therefore minor and involve the insertion of references to buildings, flats and common parts into clauses to extend their application. There are, however, three substantive amendments which seek to introduce new clauses. These are Amendments Nos. 144A, 144GG and 161D.

Amendment No. 144A concerns the conditions which must be met before an authority can entertain an application for common parts grant. The requirement in the existing grant system that three-quarters of the flats in the building must be occupied by long leaseholders or tenants is retained. This is to ensure that grant is not available where most of the flats in a building are vacant. A landlord may apply for grant alone or jointly with a group of tenants provided that he has either the power to carry out the proposed works or a duty to do so. Long leaseholders and tenants may apply for grant if they are required to carry out or contribute towards the cost of the works, whether by means of service charges or otherwise. Where an application is made by tenants, it must be made jointly by at least three-quarters of the tenants who have responsibility for carrying out or paying for the works. This requirement is to ensure that the test of resources can be operated fairly.

Amendment No. 144GG provides for the method of calculating the amount of grant payable where an application is made by tenants with or without their landlord's participation. Briefly, an authority calculates each individual's share of the cost of the works and applies the test of resources provided for in Clause 105, or in the case of a landlord in Clause 106, in relation to that share. Where the terms of the applicants' leases are not specific as to the proportion of the cost to be borne by each applicant, it is assured that all those who have a duty to contribute will pay equal contributions.

Amendment No. 161D provides for the repayment of grant in certain circumstances. Repayment would be required only where a landlord was the sole applicant and disposed of the entire building otherwise than by an exempt disposal within five years. There are no requirements for long leaseholders or tenants to repay grant.

I should also draw particular attention to Amendments Nos. 144MM to QQ. These amend Clause 108 so that disabled facilities grant is available towards the cost of adaptations to the common parts of a building where these are designed to assist a disabled person living in a flat in the building. Adaptations designed to give the disabled person access to the flat in which he lives would attract mandatory grant.

As I have explained, the Bill as drafted is technically defective in that, although it provides for a common parts grant, the provisions are not workable in relation to works on parts of premises which are not dwellings. It has, however, always been our intention to continue the existing common parts grant and to ensure that grant is available towards the cost of adaptations to common parts for the benefit of disabled people. This group of amendments fulfils our intention.

I beg to move Amendment No. 138H.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Again, this is part of the provision for housing improvement grants with which we agree in principle. So far as we can follow the very complex series of amendments, we think that they appear to be an improvement on the existing provision.

Can the Minister help me with regard to Amendment No. 144GG? It seems to be concerned primarily with the method of assessing and apportioning the liability of each of the tenants for the cost of the works. In other words, it is the apportionment of the liability as between tenants which is the thrust of the amendment. But, as we shall be discussing later amendments related to means tests, do I take it that there is no proposal for a means test for grants towards improvements of the common parts? Or will the local authority have to means test individual tenants? I make our view clear that we do not believe a means test is at all appropriate for improvement grants for common parts because if a means test were to be applied it would probably frustrate a very large number of applications for grants to common parts which are necessary and desirable. I hope the Minister will be able to answer me on that.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct in that assumption.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Am I correct in my assumption that there is no means test for common part grants?

Lord Hesketh

As I said earlier, there will be an application of the test of resources which will be provided in Clause 105 or, in the case of Clause 106, with regard to landlords: there will be a test of resources on those two.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That was what I feared. I heard what the Minister said about the test of resources in Clauses 105 and 106, but does he not recognise that this could be an impossibly complicated problem for local authorities to means test each individual tenant in the case of an application from a number of tenants or a landlord for improvements to common parts? Would it not mean that any application which caused difficulty to even a single tenant as a result of the means test would fail and that the other tenants would be denied the grant towards improvement of their common parts? Is the Minister willing to look at this again? It is a matter of grave concern because it may frustrate the laudable objectives of the Government in simplifying and improving the common part grant procedures.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

That point ought to be made clear. It would be wrong for one or two people, for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with whether or not the grant should be made, to be able to frustrate it because they may not want to pay a contribution, as the system now stands. If the improvement is deemed to be desirable and the majority of the people involved think so, it ought to be made clear that that cannot be frustrated by one or two, for reasons outside the need for improvement, not wanting to make a contribution.

Lord Hesketh

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, predictably resists the concept of any form of testing. It is also fair to say that if there was no test the net effect would be that quite a number of people living in luxury blocks of flats and enjoying a high standard of living would be able to get 100 per cent. grants to maintain their living conditions. The outcome of that would be that any money that went to those better off people would, in a world where resources are always finite, leave less to go to those who are worse off, which would hamper what we are trying to achieve.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister is anticipating one of my later amendments or perhaps is misinterpreting it. We are not resisting any kind of means test, nor are we doing so in Amendment No. 138J, to which we shall come in a few minutes. On the contrary, our proposal is much more reasonable: it deals with blocks of luxury flats and would give the local authority some discretion in the matter. What is unsatisfactory about the procedures proposed by the Government is that the local authority has no discretion and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said—I am grateful for his intervention—reasonable proposals for improvement grants would perhaps be frustrated because one or two tenants were put off by means testing procedures. A large number of people refuse to take part in means test procedures on principle. They find great difficulty in submitting themselves to means test inquiries. If it affected only them one might say that it was their privilege, but if this refusal on principle by one or two tenants in a block is likely to frustrate the improvement of the common parts for everybody else, that is a more serious matter.

I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of giving some measure of discretion to the local authorities which are making the grants. In that way we can deal with the point that the Minister makes about blocks of luxury flats and we would still have a greater chance of grants and therefore improvements in the common parts of much of our housing stock.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 138J: . Page 93, line 31, at end insert— ("(2) Where the condition of any dwelling or common parts referred to under subsection (I) above and the circumstances of the applicant are such that in the opinion of the authority to apply the provisions of section 105 below would cause hardship to the applicant, section 105 shall net apply.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment comes back directly to the point we have just been debating concerning means tests. I make clear again, as I did regarding the government amendments, that this amendment does not suggest the complete abolition of means tests. New subsection (2) in the amendment provides that: ("(2) Where the condition of any dwelling or common parts referred to under subsection (1) above and the circumstances of the applicant are such that in the opinion of the authority to apply the provisions of section 105" —

which is what we have just been referring to— below would cause hardship to the applicant, section 105 shall not apply.")".

In other words, we are suggesting that the local authority shall have a discretion not to apply the means test procedures if, in its opinion, hardship would be caused.

The fear that we have about means tests is not that they are objectionable in principle but that it is all too easy to see how means test procedures could become as complex and unwieldy and unfair as housing benefit procedures have become, particularly in the last 18 months. The more the Government seek to deal with loopholes in these benefit or grant procedures, the more they have to add to the complexity of the regulations. The more they have to add to the difficulty, and thus the need for professional advice, that ordinary people have in understanding them, the greater the likelihood that many people, particularly those most in need, will not pursue the procedures to the end and therefore will not receive the housing benefit or, in this case, the improvement grants which their income would entitle them. That is particularly true for elderly people. Not only do they have the difficulty that they tend to be living in accommodation which ought to be eligible if the grant related to the property rather than the resident, but they will also find it more difficult than would younger and perhaps more agile people to understand the regulations and the forms and to know what part of their income is eligible.

That is an inevitable consequence of the change of emphasis over which the Government are presiding. They are moving the basis of grants from the property to the income of the residents. The principle involved is so fundamental that it deserves a few minutes of exposition. We all know some of the illogicalities and difficulties of basing grants on the condition of property. We all know—because the Government are tireless in reminding us —about luxury flats and tenants in Mayfair. They go on and on about the need to target public expenditure and not to give benefit to those who could reasonably manage without it. There is some justification in this, but the point I put to the Committee and to the Government is that the effect of targeting and turning it to the resident rather than to the property is threefold. All these effects are damaging to the success of the improvement grant procedures.

Even if an individual has the means without a means test and without a grant to carry out the work, it is by no means certain that the work will be carried out. In many cases the kind of work necessary—for example work on replacing doors and windows or replacing roofs—is not necessarily reflected in the resale value of the property. In the case of tenants it is not reflected in a change to the rent. In other words, the cost of an improved house will probably not exceed, by the amount of expenditure necessary to improve it, the cost of an unimproved house. Therefore, in strict self-defence, a good many people do not do the work. They leave the house unimproved and move to a house which has been improved. They trade up in the housing market and avoid the upheaval and discomfort of the building work. Nobody therefore gets the grant and the premises are not improved.

There are a number of reasons why people do not carry out improvement work. They have nothing to do with people's physical conditions or with the means they have at their disposal. The English house condition survey of 1986 shows that a large proportion of improvements to our properties would cost under £3,000. However, many of the occupiers of the properties do not have the resources even to carry out those small improvements. This is particularly true of elderly occupiers. The disturbance of building work is more than they can emotionally and physically face. It may be that they would prefer living in unsatisfactory conditions to having the disturbance. Grants will not solve that problem. Any building work will cause emotional and physical disturbance to those people, but at least the financial penalty which is implied by the proposed procedures will not be added to the other pains of undergoing building work.

It is not as if the existing system of grants related to property rather than to residence causes so much distortion and waste of public money. In the autumn of 1983 the Government set up a distribution of grants inquiry. A summary of its findings in 1985 showed that most grants go to those with low incomes. In other words, the system is broadly working. What is interesting is that six years after that inquiry was carried out the full results of the distribution of grants inquiry are still not available. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us when they are likely to be available.

Improvement grants have been a political football for a very long time. The most recent and the most blatant example occurred before the 1983 election when the Government increased from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. the proportion eligible to grant. When this resulted in increased public expenditure, because more people were applying for grants, they put the proportion back to 75 per cent., a fairly cynical exercise the Committee may think. In 1983–1984, local authorities' expenditure on improvement grants was of the order of £1,064 million. By 1988-89, on the estimated out-turn, it had gone down to £540 million, scarcely more than 50 per cent. of the figure five years earlier. That is a reduction of expenditure of almost a half and there are now approximately 300,000 applications for grant pending or outstanding.

The compulsory, mandatory means test proposed in these clauses of the Bill is not calculated to achieve the improvement or even maintenance of our housing stock. Nor is it calculated to provide better targeting and better use of public money for that purpose. I hope that the Committee will feel that these modest amendments, which seek only to give local authorities some discretion on means testing, are worthy of its consideration. I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

The noble Lord gave us, as he always does, a most interesting tour of this part of the law. I am sure that no Member of the Committee could have listened to him without learning quite a lot about the working of the system. For that I for one am grateful. However, the amendment is quite specific and arises on only one point. It seeks to transfer to the local authority the decision as to whether or not Clause 105, to which the Committee has not yet come, shall apply in a particular case. Apart from anything else it seems procedurally difficult in that way to pre-empt a considerable part of Clause 105 which the Committee will no doubt want to discuss on its merits. It seems objectionable, on the assumption that Clause 105 stands, that what Parliament sees fit to enact as part of the law of the land should be subject to suspension on the whim of a local authority.

The amendment refers to, the opinion of the authority to apply the provisions of section 105 below would cause hardship to the applicant". It leaves it simply for the local authority to decide whether quite an important part of this measure should operate in a particular case. There are local authorities which share the noble Lord's views on the means test. It is clear that any local authority whose majority takes that view would exercise the power very widely and would largely eliminate in its area the operation of Clause 105. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment and that we shall wait until we come to Clause 105 and then discuss it on its merits.

The Earl of Caithness

Amendment No. 138J seeks to empower authorities to waive the test of resources provided for in Clause 105 in circumstances where, in the opinion of the authority, the applicant would suffer hardship and the condition of the dwelling or common parts of a building is such as to warrant a waiver.

This amendment gives me the opportunity to explain in more detail the test of resources for the new renovation grants and I hope, to allay any fears the Committee may have about its operation.

Last January, the Department of the Environment issued a consultation paper Renovation Grants: Proposed Test of Resources. The paper did not deal with the principle of testing the resources of grant applicants. That issue was debated fully in the context of the home improvement policy consultation paper of November 1987. Instead it dealt with the form of the test and the key elements of it.

We received 123 responses to the proposals in the consultation paper, and copies of most of these are available in the Library. Some of the respondents reiterated their opposition in principle to the test of resources, but a majority of consultees supported the Government's main objective of directing grant assistance to those in most need. There was also a wide welcome for the introduction of grants towards the full costs of the works for those on incomes at or below the threshold. There was also wide support for an additional grant premium and taper. Consultees expressed concern over some aspects of the proposed test, such as the exclusion of mortgage payments and the steepness of the taper.

We have given very careful consideration to the comments that were received. In some cases we have adjusted the proposals. But generally we are minded to adopt the provisions for owner occupiers and tenants as set out in the consultation paper and which I will now explain in more detail.

An applicant's needs will be assessed in the same way as housing benefit and community charge benefit, by the award of allowances in respect of the applicant, his partner and any dependent children. Premiums will be available in respect of lone parenthood, pensions, disability, and so on, in the usual way. In addition, there will be a universal £20 net per week grant premium. This will serve to set the lower threshold—or applicable amount, as it will be called in regulations—significantly higher than basic housing benefit levels, and designed to minimise the disincentive effect on someone with an income marginally above those levels.

An applicant's income will also be assessed in a similar way to housing benefit. The net income of the applicant and partner and a portion of the income of dependent children will be taken into account, less the usual disregards. The income of non-dependent members of the household will not be taken into account, and neither will any deductions be made in respect of non-dependents. However, in respect of the disabled facilities grant, where the person for whose benefit the adaptations are to be made is a non-dependent member of the applicant's household, there will be provision for their income also to be taken into account. In such circumstances, any additional premiums in respect of disability, age, and so on, applicable to that person will of course be awarded.

I can also confirm that savings of up to £5,000 will be completely disregarded. Any capital over and above this level will be converted to a tariff income at the rate of £1 per £250, which is the same as that for housing benefit. There will be no upper limit on capital and savings.

Where an applicant's income is at or below the threshold, he will be entitled to grant equivalent to the full cost of the approved works. Where income exceeds the threshold, 20p in the pound of that excess will be regarded as being available to help finance the costs of the work that needs to be done. For owner-occupiers, this contribution will be assumed to purchase a notional loan secured on the property at the current standard national rate of interest and repayable over 10 years. For tenants, in recognition of the fact that they may not be able to command as favourable a loan as home owners, the notional loan will assume five-year repayment terms. In either case, the amount of grant payable will be the excess of the cost of the relevant works over the notional loan —in other words, the residual amount.

These detailed provisions will be brought into effect through regulations, which we expect to issue in draft form as soon as possible. We shall be consulting on these in the usual way. Once they are in force, we shall be keeping the detailed operation of the test of resources under review, and the various allowances and premiums contained in them will be uprated annually in line with the income related benefits on which they are based.

This is at best a brief outline of the proposed test of resources as it will apply to owner-occupiers and tenants. It is, we believe, the best way to deal fairly and openly with those whose property needs essential repair and improvement work. For the first time it enables resources to be targeted effectively on those who most need the support that grant provides.

In preparing our proposals for the test of resources to be applied to owner-occupier and tenants we have been concerned to cater for those circumstances where a grant applicant might suffer hardship if there were no assistance towards the cost of necessary repairs and improvements. That is the principle behind the proposals which I have just described to the Committee. However, we also wish to ensure that grant is available on an even-handed basis and that there is no possibility that a grant applicant in one area should be disadvantaged in comparison with one in another area. Amendment No. 138J breaches this principle by making the application of the test of resources discretionary.

The details of the test are the subject of subordinate legislation and can, if necessary, be adjusted in the light of experience. I cannot accept, however, that it is right to insert into the primary legislation a provision which could lead to inequalities. That is why I recommend to the Committee that Amendment No. 138J should not be accepted.

I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that the means test is not objectionable in principle, although in explaining his amendment he said that he was concerned that the local authorities should have flexibility. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as usual, put his finger on the main concerns of that, and I add my concerns. As I have just said, the amendment would lead to inequalities which we are trying to avoid. We are trying to put the system to which we have been subject on to a fairer basis; that is, a basis on which we can target the limited resources to those who most need them.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

The Minister spoke about the testing of resources. Can he tell me whether that means that everybody will have to go through the means testing procedure he has just described when so many of the people will automatically be able to put their pension books or income support books on the table? They have already gone through a means testing procedure or whatever one likes to call it. Is it not enough that they have already gone through a government testing of resources procedure without setting up another similar test?

Baroness Phillips

I should like to follow up my noble friend's point. There is an enormous cost involved in calculating whether someone is to receive 30p more than he should. That is really what this legislation boils down to; that is, pettifogging regulations on very small sums of money. It will be costly to operate and I wholly support what my noble friend said. The people who have to fill in these forms are the very people who do not understand them and are frightened of them.

I also ask the Minister: what is the penalty if a wicked person receives a grant and has savings over this magic sum of £5,000; in other words, that person has done something wrong? This is the Government at work and is the sort of measure which will, in the end, cause their own destruction.

Lord Stallard

I should like to ask one question on the linking of the means test to the housing benefit. Housing benefit has already been changed nine times since it was introduced. Does that mean that as the tapers change, some people who were means tested and who were just outside the limit will now be inside it? Can the Minister tell us that there will be some sort of stability as regards people who have been given grants if this measure goes through?

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Perhaps I may add a few words. I find it very depressing to hear my noble kinsman say that severely disabled people will be means tested, because when people are severely disabled they have many extra expenses and just to survive in the community is a problem. It is very sad that the Government cannot give a little encouragement to enable people and families to stick together and to stay in the community.

The Earl of Caithness

I should like to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, which was also picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. That is an important point. I was going to come to it on a subsequent amendment but perhaps it may be helpful if I say something about it now.

We are aware of this question of being means tested and then finding that a similar test is needed to obtain a grant. We are looking at what we call "passporting"; that is, once you have been through one means test you do not have to go through that again to obtain a grant. That can be done by regulations and it is a matter of which we are fully aware. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for raising that point.

I hope to be able to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, shortly. As regards my noble kinswoman, I am sure that we all realise that she has tabled an amendment which deals with her specific concern. I do not wish to pre-empt discussion on that.

Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that the premises and allowances will be uprated in line with housing benefit. The taper is different and independent of the grant taper which we are considering, but I take his point on the question of stability and I shall look into that.

4 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister sought to reassure the Committee by setting out—and we are grateful to him for it—the basis on which the means test is to be applied. He sought to reassure us that it will not be as severe a means test as the housing benefit procedure, though he has now conceded that it will be varied as housing benefit varies. However, as my noble friend Lord Stallard says, housing benefit has varied nine times in recent years and that means there will be constantly shifting goal posts for the means tests for grants just as there are for housing benefit. I should have thought that that was a recipe for confusion.

The Minister admitted in his reply that his proposals vary little from those in the earlier consultation document and that, although there had been demands from those who were consulted that there should be substantial changes, on the whole those demands have not been acceded to. The result is therefore well known to us and it is not satisfactory. It is a complex and harsh regime. We do not believe that it will achieve either social justice in the sense of dealing fairly with people of modest means or the objective of the improvement of our housing stock.

If the Government continue repeating the phrase about targeting public expenditure to the best effect they must do better than they have done in giving examples from areas where government expenditure has not been targeted. The GDE in 1983, which I have already quoted, showed that most grants went to people on low incomes. What evidence do the Government have to show that a significant part of the non-means tested grants are going where they are not—as I am sure the Government would call it—deserved? What evidence do the Government have—other than sheer assertion, which is all we have heard—that there is a serious problem which needs to be overcome by this cumbersome, expensive and, as my noble friend Lady Phillips pointed out, unjust means testing procedure?

I turn now with pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose interventions we are always pleased to hear. He first made a procedural point. He criticised me for introducing, at the beginning of this part of the Bill, a reference to Clause 105. However, if we had reached Clause 105 without making the point at the first available opportunity I am sure that the noble Lord would not have been the last to rise to his feet and say that we had agreed to the principle and that, having reached Clause 105, we could not now very well object to the detail of it. In other words, one treats a part of the Bill as a whole and on the first available opportunity objections of considerable importance and principle should be raised. As I have said, this is not only about the social justice of the scheme but also about its practicability. I take the view that we must raise the matter now.

The noble Lord made a more substantial point, if I may put it that way, in claiming that we were giving absolute discretion to local authorities. I contest that. We are saying in this amendment that local authorities shall have the power to continue to use the test of hardship which has been a staple in legislation for many years. Local authorities have been able to give 100 per cent. grants in cases of hardship in many parts of local authority expenditure. Even if that were not the case and the test of hardship were new, local authorities have to behave reasonably. It would be open to any ratepayer to challenge any misuse of this discretionary power which they felt was going outside the proper balance of local authority discretion.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps the noble Lord wilt, allow me to intervene. He said that a ratepayer could challenge misuse of the power. However, the power is very wide. It is a question of the opinion of the local authority. Of course, if the opinion were plainly crazy, that could be challenged, but opinion is a fairly loose test and, if the local authority says that it honestly believes that hardship will be caused, it is unlikely that any court would upset that decision. It is an extremely wide power.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The word "opinion" must be taken with the word "hardship". The word "hardship" has been well established in legislation. Indeed, the noble Lord has taken part in many local government debates and has often defended the ratepayers' right to challenge unreasonable expenditure by local authorities. I doubt whether it would be difficult for a ratepayer to demonstrate that the combination of an established definition of hardship and the universal reasonableness test could not give rise at any rate to a challenge in the courts. Even if it were not to give rise to a challenge in the courts it would be a politically damaging action for a local authority to risk. After all, what local authority will extend the definition of hardship in order to encourage large payments of improvements grants to those who do not deserve them? What local authority will go to the polls on the basis of giving improvement grants to those in, for example, luxury flats? It is as politically inconceivable as it is judicially unlikely.

I maintain the view that this is a modest amendment which would, without breaching any principles of local authority legislation and, indeed, without introducing any new concepts to local authority legislation, overcome some of the very severe difficulties which the Government's proposals for home improvement grants will raise. It has been made clear during interventions from these Benches that the effect of this means testing of improvement grants will be far fewer grants; not because there will be fewer grants to people of more means but because there will be people who do not understand the forms and do not like the means test. The result will then be that the housing stock will not be improved and maintained as it should be. Moreover, many people in severe need will suffer dramatically and the whole purpose of this part of the Bill will be frustrated.

I wish that the Government had shown some movement in this matter which would have enabled me to withdraw the amendment, but they have plainly failed to do that. Therefore, I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the Committee.

4.7 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 138J) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents 122.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Amherst, E.	Evans of Claughton, L.
Attlee, E.	Ewart-Biggs, B.
Aylestone, L.	Ezra, L.
Birk, B.	Falkland, V.
Blackstone, B.	Fisher of Rednal, B.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Fitt, L.
Bottomley, L.	Gallacher, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Galpern, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Gladwyn, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Grey, E.
	Hampton, L.
Carter, L.	Hanworth, V.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
David, B.	Hayter, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Hirshfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Raglan, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Hunt, L.	Reilly, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Rochester, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Russell, E.
Kagan, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Listowel, E.	Scanlon, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Seear, B.
	Sefton of Garston, L.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Serota, B.
Lockwood, B.	Shaugnnessy, L.
Longford, E.	Simon, V.
McCarthy, L.	Stallard, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.	Stedman, B.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Mayhew, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.	Tordoff, L.
Mishcon, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Molloy, L.	Underhill, L.
Mulley, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Nicol, B.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Northfield, L.	Whaddon, L.
Oram, L.	White, B.
Parry, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Phillips, B.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Havers, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Headfort, M.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Henley, L.
Allerton, L.	Hesketh, L.
Alport, L.	Hives, L.
Ampthill, L.	Hood, V.
Annaly, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Arran, E.	Ingrow, L.
Auckland, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Balfour, E.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Beloff, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Belstead, L.	King of Wartnaby, L.
Blake, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Borthwick, L.	Kitchener, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Brightman, L.	Layton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Long, V.
Butterworth, L.	Lovat, L.
Caccia, L.	Lyell, L.
Caithness, E.	McAlpine of Moffatt, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Margadale, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Marley, L.
Coleraine, L.	Melville, V.
Cowley, E.	Merrivale, L.
Cox, B.	Mersey, V.
Craigavon, V.	Middleton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Morris, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Mostyn, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Mountevans, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Munster, E.
Derwent, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Nelson, E.
Effingham, E.	Nelson of Stafford, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Newcastle, Bp.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Onslow, E.
Erroll of Hale, L.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Faithfull, B.	Orkney, E.
Ferrers, E.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Pender, L.
Gainford, L.	Porritt, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Rankeillour, L.
Gisborough, L.	Reay, L.
Gridley, L.	Renton, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Richardson, L.

Rochdale, V.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Rodney, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	Swansea, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.	Terrington, L.
Savile, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Seebohm, L.	Tranmire, L.
Selkirk, E.	Trefgarne, L.
Sharpies, B.	Trumpington, B.
Somers, L.	Ullswater, V.
Stanley of Alderley, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Strange, B.	Wise, L.
Strathcarron, L.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.16 p.m.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 138K and 138L: Page 93, line 39, after ("dwellings") insert ("or in the common parts of a building containing one or more flats"). Page 93, line 39, at end insert ("and (d) a grant for the improvement or repair of a house in multiple occupation or for the provision of a house in multiple occupation by the conversion of a house or other building is referred to as an "HMO grant" ").

The noble Lord said: These two amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 138M: Page 93, line 41, at end insert— ("(2A) Any grant to which subsection (2) above refers which is determined as specified in section 107(1) below shall be expenditure which shall not contribute towards the total of any credit approval as specified in section 107(8)").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to the consequential Amendment No. 147B. They deal with the second of our major areas of disquiet as regards the Government's proposals for the home improvement grants. The matter can be put very simply. We believe that unless there is an assurance from the Government that new money is to be used for improvement grants there will not be adequate expenditure on improvement grants—in other words, that it is not money that is part of the basic credit approval which is the new government way of controlling local authority housing expenditure. If mandatory grants are to be successful there will be inadequate expenditure on other elements of local authority expenditure, unless new money is made available.

I refer to the repair and maintenance of council housing stock. We covered mandatory grants to some extent in debate yesterday. They are demand-led. In other words it is not possible for the department or the local authority to anticipate exactly in advance what the demand will be. Some factors, such as an unfair and unjust means test system which the Committee has sadly just approved, will tend to damp down the demand for even mandatory improvement grants. There are other factors. The worsening condition of our housing stock is a state of affairs established by many independent surveys. This will also tend to increase the level of improvement grants.

The actual level of applications is as impenetrable a piece of forecasting as is the likely future physical condition of the housing stock. It does not matter whether the grants are to owner occupiers or landlords. I am not opposing reliance on the mandatory grants procedure, but it means that a local authority cannot set an artificial ceiling on its expenditure. It cannot know in advance what the expenditure is likely to be. It therefore cannot make a realistic assessment of the money that is to be available from its total basic credit approval for purposes other than improvement grants.

As so often, local authorities will tend to sail very close to the coast because of their financial situation. They will probably be spending more time and money getting from point A to point B to achieve a given purpose than would be the case if the financial system were more secure. We are here asking for an assurance that the expenditure incurred by an authority under this section and financed by a credit arrangement shall not contribute towards the total basic credit approvals as defined in Part IV and Clause 51 of the Bill; in other words, that it should be a separate obligation recognised by central government and enabling the rest of the local authority housing budget to be rationally drawn up, rationally criticised by government and rationally reduced by government if that is government's wish.

I say that because this is not the abolition of central government controls on local authority expenditure. We believe that this will not only lead to a more effective use of public money for home improvement grants, and especially for mandatory grants, but that it will also lead to greater effectiveness in the expenditure of all parts of the local housing authority budgets.

If the Government are proposing to resist the amendment, we must ask what the assumptions are behind their own financial thinking. We certainly do not expect the Paymaster General to anticipate the conclusions of the public expenditure White Paper. However, it is possible for him to share with Members of the Committee some of the thinking of his department as to the way in which the procedure will work. Unless this thinking is shared with us, and unless we are given some insight into the way in which the Government are thinking, then we cannot make an effective judgment as to whether the improvement grants procedure is the right procedure.

If the department is being particularly pessimistic about the amount of expenditure which will either be available or required, then the Committee may well wish to ask whether all of these elaborate procedures are there for any real purpose. Therefore, what estimates of take-up and expenditure of mandatory grants are available? Can we see such estimates, and can we be told how they will be fitted into the department's proposals for the public expenditure White Paper?

Further, how will the Minister reassure authorities which are worried that an increased take-up will cut resources in other areas of the housing programme? When I raised this matter while discussing an earlier amendment I did not receive any such reassurance. I think that housing authorities of all political persuasions will wish me to reiterate my demands for such reassurances because unless they are received we shall not have an adequate basis for the budgeting of housing expenditure. How can a demand-led, unpredictable item of expenditure be included within a cost-limited planning total for housing? That is another way of putting the same question. These are not like matters. All other elements of housing expenditure can plausibly be put forward as working within fixed budgets which are determined by the local authority and controlled by central government. That is not the case for demand-led mandatory grants. How can the two aspects reasonably be put together?

I am asking the Minister whether he recognises the fact that the money for mandatory grants ought to be new money, paid separately to local authorities and independently subsidised so that there is no detrimental effect to other parts of the housing programme. There is not much point in us improving—as the Government claim we are—the provision for mandatory home improvement grants if the effect of that is to lead to the decay of another part of the housing stock.

It is difficult to see what the Minister expects authorities to do if they find that an unexpectedly large part of their housing budget is taken up with mandatory improvement grants. Will the Minister give any advice now to local authorities which find themselves in that position? If he is not going to do so, and if he is not able to answer these questions, then we are bound to conclude that the effectiveness of this whole part of the Bill is at risk and that in some important aspects the Government are not entirely serious about the proposals they claim to be putting forward. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

The effect of these amendments would mean that borrowing incurred by a local authority in order to finance a mandatory renovation grant to make a property fit for human habitation would not come within the controls provided by Part IV of this Bill. Specifically, it would mean that an authority could borrow whatever it needed outside its basic credit approval to finance mandatory grant expenditure.

There are two reasons why this would be unacceptable. First, a grant of this sort is not the only action open to a local authority where a property is unfit for human habitation. In particular, it may be that clearance is a more satisfactory solution. It would be quite wrong to provide a more favourable borrowing regime for renovation as against clearance—particularly as we are seeking to ensure a better balance between the two.

Secondly—and more important—the Government already recognise that assistance needs to be given to local authorities in respect of grants for private sector housing renewal, particularly where a duty is imposed on an authority as in the case of a mandatory grant. That is why an authority receives an Exchequer contribution towards the cost of such grants. As from 1st April next year that contribution will be made as a capital grant to the authority concerned rather than as a grant towards loan charges. Allowance will also be made within the basic credit approval which all authorities will receive for the next and subsequent years for their likely borrowing requirements for private sector renewal generally. We shall discuss the way in which this might work with the local authority associations.

These amendments seek to circumvent the very controls on borrowing which the Committee discussed when dealing with Part IV of the Bill. We do not believe that this is acceptable. It is also unnecessary in that local authorities' requirements in respect of grants for housing renewal are already recognised in the new arrangements to be introduced from next year onwards. That is why the Government resist the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I do not think that that answer even starts to meet the points which I made, and it certainly does not answer the very specific questions which I put to the Government when I moved the amendment. The Minister seeks to persuade us that this procedure will turn local authorities wrongly towards a policy of clearance rather than towards a policy of renovation. However, the rules and the authorisation needed for clearance are already quite severe. It is not easy for local authorities using their existing powers to go for substantial areas of clearance. For example, they can be frustrated by the refusal of compulsory purchase orders. I do not think that this is a realistic alternative even for a local authority with the worst possible will in the world. I cannot see any good reason for a local authority to be so perversely determined to frustrate the wishes of government in this matter.

I am afraid that the Minister has confirmed the worst of our fears. He has confirmed by, I am sorry to say, the triviality of the answer which he has given to what is intended as a serious point that the Government are not entirely serious about these mandatory grants. Unless the Government are willing to provide the means for the mandatory grants without detriment to the rest of the housing programme, then it is clear that they do not really expect mandatory grants to accomplish the very grand things which were suggested in the earlier consultation papers.

I do not see any sign of movement towards a rational response on the Government's part and I fear therefore that it will be necessary for me again to seek the opinion of the Committee on this important matter.

4.27 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 138M) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents 114.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Birk, B.
Amherst, E.	Blackstone, B.
Attlee, E.	Bonham-Carter, L
Aylestone, L.	Bottomley, L.

Broadbridge, L.	Lockwood, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Longford, E.
Bruce of Donington, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
	Mayhew, L.
Carter, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mishcon, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Mulley, L.
David, B.	Nicol, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Northfield, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Oram, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Parry, L.
Evans of Claughton, L.	Phillips, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Ezra, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Falkland, V.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Raglan, L.
Foot, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Gallacher, L. [Teller]	Rochester, L.
Galpern, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Russell, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Grey, E.	Scanlon, L.
Hampton, L.	Seear, B.
Hanworth, V.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Serota, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hayter, L.	Simon, V.
Hirshfield, L.	Stallard, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Stedman, B.
Howie of Troon, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Hunt, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Jeger, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Tordoff, L.
Listowel, E.	Underhill, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
	White, B.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Erroll of Hale, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Faithfull, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Ferrers, E.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Allerton, L.	Gainford, L.
Alport, L.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Ampthill, L.	Gisborough, L.
Annaly, L.	Gridley, L.
Arran, E.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Balfour, E.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Beloff, L.	Havers, L.
Belstead, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L
Blake, L.	Henley, L.
Borthwick, L.	Hesketh, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Hives, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Holderness, L.
Butterworth, L.	Hood, V.
Caccia, L.	Ingrow, L.
Caithness, E.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Carnock, L.	King of Wartnaby, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Kitchener, E.
Cholmondeley, M.	Lauderdale, E.
Coleraine, L.	Long, V.
Cowley, E.	Lyell, L.
Cox, B.	McAlpine of Moffatt, L.
Craigavon, V.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Margadale, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Marley, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Merrivale, L.
Derwent, L.	Mersey, V.
Dilhorne, V.	Middleton, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Morris, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Mostyn, L.

Munster, E.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Savile, L.
Nelson, E.	Selkirk, E.
Nelson of Stafford, L.	Sharples, B.
Nugent of Guildford, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Onslow, E.	Strange, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.	Strathcarron, L.
Orkney, E.	Strathcona and Mount
Orr-Ewing, L.	Royal, L.
Oxfuird, V.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Pender, L.
Pennock, L.	Swansea, L.
Porritt, L.	Swinfen, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Terrington, L.
Reay, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Renton, L.	Tranmire, L.
Richardson, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Rippon of Hexham, L.	Trumpington, B.
Rochdale, V.	Tryon, L.
Rodney, L.	Ullswater, V.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.37 p.m.

Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 139: After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:

("Grants for disabled facilities

. Notwithstanding section 98(3) above, where a dwelling is being provided or is to be provided by any one of the persons listed in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 98(3), and where a disabled person has entered into a contract to become the owner or tenant of the dwelling, a disabled facilities grant in respect of works in progress or planned—

1. (a) shall be payable to a person listed in section 98(3) where the relevant works are for the purposes set out in section 108(2); and
2. (b) may be paid to a person listed in section 98(3) where the relevant works are for the purposes set out in section 108(3).").

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to allow payment of the disabled facilities grant to a local authority, new town corporation, urban development corporation, housing action trust and so forth in respect of dwellings that are in the course of construction and a disabled occupant awaits completion of the dwelling.

Grants for dwellings under construction were proposed in the Government's original consultative document. I welcomed that proposal because the alterations and additions of interest are of an order of magnitude greater and more expensive than relatively minor easements of mobility housing. Even when all housing is built to mobility standards, major adaptations will still be required for wheelchair-bound people. Obviously a grant would not be payable for a level entrance if that were being provided in any case; but grant would be payable for a lift to the bedroom, an extra bedroom or downstairs bathroom when one was not planned.

The alternative to accepting the amendment would be to allow dwellings, which in the general course of events cost a great deal of money to be completed and then drastically altered. It would be far cheaper to give the grant while the dwelling is being constructed and to allow it to be properly built for the disabled person in the first place. The alternative is rather like a farmer who needs a new vehicle to pull his plough. He orders one and is sent a Morris Minor. He has to make extensive alterations at considerable cost to make it suitable for pulling the plough. Were we to leave the Bill as it is, that is what we would be doing. I recommend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

The amendment will encourage the saving of money. If it is known that a disabled person will be living in the house that is to be built, many of the person's individual needs can be incorporated at no or little cost. However, some requirements may involve an appreciable extra cost: for example, the installation of special bathing or showering equipment or an extra large garage. The only way at present in which any assistance can be given is to wait until the building is complete, rip out what has been installed and replace it with what was wanted all the time. That seems a great waste of everybody's time and money.

In their 1987 Consultation paper on house improvements, the Government said that there would be grants for adaptations carried out to houses in the course of construction which would be occupied by disabled people. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what happened about this and why it was left out.

Lord Carter

I am extremely pleased to add my name to this amendment and to give support to it from this side of the Committee. However, before I proceed to the amendment I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to meet me afterwards and explain exactly the changes required to a mini-car to enable it pull a plough!

As previous speakers have said, the amendment is intended to bring in the payment of the disabled facilities grant in respect of dwellings under construction. It prevents an unsuitable dwelling being completed and people having to seek a grant to alter it. It enables the planning adaptations to go ahead and ensures that the adaptations are carried out at the most effective and economic time.

I wish to raise another point which I hope the Minister can answer. It is particularly important that the Government should make it clear that tenants in the public sector will be treated in exactly the same way as private tenants and owner occupiers where disabled facilities grants are concerned. If they are not, unless the grants are made available at a public saving, the only way in which local authorities can help disabled tenants is by funding the work from their revenue accounts. This effectively means that adaptations for public sector tenants have to be paid for by the other tenants of the authority, whereas private sector adaptations will be largely funded by the Exchequer.

If I have understood this correctly, I ask the Minister why tenants in council houses and disabled tenants should be discriminated against in this way? It almost seems to be on a par with the treatment in regard to rent arrears which was dealt with in earlier sections. At the moment the current legislation treats tenants in the public sector in exactly the same way as private tenants and owner occupiers. If this amendment were accepted, it would ensure that the situation would continue and particularly that people with disabilities would not be put at a disadvantage under the proposals in the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

I wish to support the amendment because I am sure that it provides one of the ways in which money can be saved. If handicapped people try to live in houses where equipment is not available for them, they invariably end up in a hostel or home where it is much more expensive to cater for them. The idea in the amendment is simply to draw attention to the fact that, if we can make it possible for the dwelling to be provided so that people who are handicapped can live in it, we shall enable them to lead an independent life. Also it will not be nearly as expensive because they will live on their own or with their families in a house equipped for them. I very much hope that the Government will appreciate this and give grants for the building of such houses and the installation of such equipment.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

I also should like briefly to support the amendment. I believe that it is fairly well known that those who are building houses from scratch now very rarely take into account the people who are disabled or who have any problems with living in the houses being built. I very much doubt whether the builders take the trouble to ask any disabled people or organisations representing disabled people what they would like and what would be convenient for them. The amendment is very helpful and logical and I hope that the Government will see their way to agreeing with it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I only wish to put on record that we agree with the amendment so ably moved and supported.

Lord Ross of Newport

We also very much support the amendment. We greatly prefer it to those coming up later which the Government have tabled and which will allow people occupying local authority homes that have been specially adapted for them to acquire them. Those homes have been adapted at considerable expense and are in limited supply. I do not think that that is the right way to go ahead.

I do not wish in any way to disadvantage the disabled but it seems to me that this amendment is a much better way to proceed. It would write the provision into the Bill that the social services could give grants for this sort of conversion. That would perhaps not apply to new buildings, but the opportunity is always limited and money is rarely available so one is lucky if one happens to obtain grants from the social services budget. It would be much better if it were written into the Bill here and now. I think that is a sensible way to proceed and I hope that the Government will give the amendment a fair wind.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I could add my voice to those who have moved and supported the amendment. I should have thought it would be difficult for the Minister not to agree to put this provision into the Bill. This is particularly the case since he himself has said that it is the policy of the Government that new houses should be so constructed that the disabled are borne in mind. The term "disabled people" includes the elderly and infirm, an increasing part of our population.

This provision will save money in the end, it is obviously sense and it is supported on all sides of the Committee. The Minister himself has said that he is in favour of the principle. I hope that if he cannot agree to this new clause, he can bring forward a clause of his own to much the same effect at a later stage.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for explaining the amendment with such clarity. I have to admit to him that I could read it in at least two ways and I am grateful that my attempt at understanding it was in one of the ways in which he described it to the Committee.

I have to say that the amendment proposed does not take account of all the other provisions in this part relating to applications and payment of grant. Since they are not disapplied, they would operate and yet their manner of operation would be unclear or would automatically prevent grant from being paid. The Committee will understand that this is a technical matter but I thought it was an important point to lay before the Committee.

More particularly, the purpose of the disabled facilities grant is not to relieve the local authorities and others of their responsibility to provide, when undertaking new construction, in particular dwellings which are generally suitable for the disabled. I think that this is where some of the discussion perhaps did not take full account of the obligation on local authorities or public sector authorities, because that is what we are talking about within the terms of the amendment.

My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve said that very few new dwellings were being built that took into account the needs of the disabled. As concerns local authorities and the housing associations, I was very keen to see that those dwellings were built and that obviously the alterations to take account of the needs of the disabled were undertaken at day one. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, it is far better to do it at day one while the building is in the course of construction rather than drastically to amend the building afterwards. That is very much more expensive.

Of course, in my new position as Treasury Minister I am all for saving money, so I could not agree more with my noble kinswoman. When she said that the amendment was designed to save money, my ears pricked up and I thought that we must be on to a good thing.

My noble kinswoman was absolutely right to say that the consultation paper proposed a grant for adaptations during dwelling constructions. However, it has not yet been possible to design a practical system for achieving this. There are difficulties where grant is paid and a disabled person is unable to move in. However, we shall continue to consider how we might overcome this. In view of the great concern in the Committee, I should be happy to meet my noble friend between now and another stage to see whether we can overcome this problem and meet the very genuine concerns involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the point about disabled facilities grants for public sector tenants. Private sector and public sector tenants are treated identically in this respect. Both are eligible for disabled facilities grants on the same basis as an owner occupier. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, meets my noble friend Lord Swinfen he will take into account the size of the plough and the land which the plough will have to till as that will affect the conversion of the car that my noble friend wants to convert.

I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. However, I cannot be more forthcoming at the moment, for the technical reason that I mentioned and for the reason that I gave to my noble kinswoman. However, I am happy to meet my noble friend between now and another stage to see whether we can make progress on this important issue.

Lord Swinfen

I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of this amendment. I also wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for his offer to meet me to discuss a suitable alternative amendment for the next stage of the Bill. I am happy to agree to that. I am also happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at a suitably damp and boggy part of some farmland somewhere in the vicinity of Westminster to discuss the proper conversion of a miniature tractor. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel)

Before I call the next amendment I have to point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 139A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 139B. I now call Amendment No. 139A.

Clause 99 [Applications for grants]:

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 139A: Page 94, leave out from beginning of line 31 to ("and") in line 33 and insert— ("(bb) at least two estimates from different contractors registered for VAT of the cost of carrying out the relevant works and supported by suitable insurance backed guarantee schemes approved by the Office of Fair Trading;").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 139A, I wish, with the leave of the Committee to speak also to Amendment No. 139B. In the groupings list that has been supplied to me those two amendments are grouped together. However, when these matters were discussed in another place there were two other amendments which now appear as Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B. Unless there is any disagreement on the matter I wish, certainly for the sake of my personal convenience and in order to shorten the procedures of this Committee, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B, as they all raise the same basic matters.

I hope the Committee will excuse me if I take a little time to explain where we are in the Bill. We have reached Part VIII, which deals with grants towards the cost of improvements and repairs. My amendments apply to Clause 99, which concerns applications for grants. Incidentally, when the other place dealt with this matter a number of other amendments were introduced. As I shall explain a little later, they confused the issue.

My amendments are directed to a mischief. The mischief is a social matter of considerable sensitivity and importance. The amendments try to ensure that building work is carried out properly and efficiently. This matter was explained in another place at far greater length than I shall go into. It is well known to the Government that in these days of building development any person with a van and a ladder purporting to be an efficient and competent builder may make all kinds of promises to people —often they will be elderly —who are looking for someone to carry out repairs for them. Much of the work that such people promise to do is not carried out. It may relate to a roof or part of a house which is not readily capable of being inspected. Delay in payment often gives rise to threats and other kinds of intimidation. It is therefore to this basic mischief that these amendments are directed. I say again without apology that this is a social problem of great significance and importance. I am sure I shall obtain the basic sympathy of the Minister, although there may be certain technical difficulties in the scope of the various amendments. I insist on making perfectly clear the object I wish to achieve in this social matter. The object is to dilute, if not to eliminate unhappy consequences of inefficient building work of this nature, particularly with regard to the poorly paid and the elderly.

I now turn to the amendments themselves. The Committee will note that Clause 99(2) of the Bill referring to applications for grants states: An application for a grant shall be in writing and shall specify the premises to which it relates and contain — (a) particulars of the works in respect of which the grant is sought (in this Part referred to as 'the relevant works');". I should like paragraph (b) of Clause 99(2) to be deleted and the text of my Amendment No. 139A to be put in its place. Amendment No. 139A states: (bb) at least two estimates from different contracts registered for VAT of the cost of carrying out the relevant works and supported by suitable insurance backed guarantee schemes approved by the Office of Fair Trading".

That formula would constitute a pretty strong safeguard. The Committee or the Minister may feel that that safeguard is too strict. However, I should like to hear the Minister's views. Amendment No. 139B could be an alternative to that. When the grant is being made, I have suggested, in Amendment No. 139B, that the estimates: should include suitable insurance backed guarantee schemes approved by the Office of Fair Trading". The Minister will no doubt be aware of the discussions that have taken place with the Building Employers Confederation in this regard.

I now turn to Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B, which approach the matter in a similar way. They too attempt to obtain efficient working practices. These two amendments fall to be determined in Clause 112. Clause 112 concerns conditions of grants and repayments. The rubric of the clause is entitled: Conditions as to completion of works".

Clause 112(2) states: Subject to subsection (3) below, it is a condition of the grant that the eligible works are carried out within twelve months from the date of approval of the application concerned". Amendment No. 161A seeks quite simply to replace "specification" with "specifications and guarantees" in the preceding subsection. In the course of the applications guarantees will be given. Therefore the clause should deal with both the specifications and the guarantees.

I now come to the fourth amendment. It is intended to ensure that building work is carried out, by a VAT registered builder providing a suitable insurance backed guarantee approved by the Office of Fair Trading". It is incumbent on me to remind the Minister that the amendments are directed at the problem of the "cowboy" builder. I have paraphrased some of the speeches to be found in Hansard of the House of Commons for 25th April 1989, starting at column 126. In my respectful submission the Minister, in responding to an amendment dealing with the problem of the cowboy builder was somewhat confused. Questions were raised about those gentlemen with a van and a ladder who might be evading tax in whatever form—income tax, corporation tax, or VAT. My four amendments are not concerned with illegal actions or the evasion of VAT; they try to prevent incompetent work being undertaken.

The Minister was very sympathetic to the problem. He said: There is a general agreement on the need to extend the choice of builders who are available to the customer and on the need to break down practice that restricts that choice, but not at the expense of undercutting unfairly the reputable local builder … What matters is not whether a Bill offers a guarantee system but whether work is properly supervised at key stages when things can go wrong and might need to be put right. Supervision by technically qualified people acting on the consumer's behalf is most important. We need to improve access to such help on the scale of the work suggested. Services provided have an important role, especially for those unable to afford professional advice at commercial rates".

The Minister enlarged upon the desirability of preventing such practices in order to secure efficient building before reaching a conclusion which I do not understand. He was obviously sympathetic to the general feeling behind what were in effect the same four amendments as I am presenting to the Committee. He said: The amendments would rule out smaller builders and make it extremely difficult for them to undertake the work. I tried to give my honourable friend the Member for Hornchurch an undertaking that I was as worried about the matter as he is, but I believe that the Government should not legislate on it and increase this form of bureaucracy".

I cannot understand how the Minister can adjudicate, on the facts before him, that the amendments would rule out the smaller builders and therefore discourage entrepreneurs. We are dealing with people who try to deceive.

An example has been brought to my notice of building work costing £3,000. The builder did hardly anything and spent a week or so on the job. The work was done in a part of the house which could not easily be inspected. The builder demanded the whole sum of £3,000. When the question arose as to whether he had been competent an inspection would have cost money which the occupiers of the house could not afford. Occupiers are sometimes told that they can go to the courts. In my experience there is very little justice in the courts for such people to deal with a swindle of that kind.

I do not apologise for the length of my speech. I have tried to explain the matter as simply as possible. I have no doubt repeated myself where I believe it is essential that the basic themes should be understood. I realise that the Minister may feel that there are difficulties about the form of wording in one or more of the four amendments, but I am sure that I shall receive his sympathy. I look forward to a constructive reply by the Minister regarding this social problem. I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will, I think, agree that there is a misprint in the first line of paragraph (bb) of Amendment No. 139A as it appears on the Marshalled List. Should it not read "contractors" and not "contracts"?

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I am most obliged to the noble Lord, It should be "contractors" and not "contracts".

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

The only other point that I have is whether, in the case of a very small job, the amendment, in doing away with the discretion of the local authority to waive the demand for two separate estimates, which I understand is its effect, might exclude the very small builder. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about that.

The Earl of Balfour

I am very concerned by the amendment although I sympathise with the mover and the ideas behind the amendment. I should like to quote one or two examples from my practical experience. The first concerns VAT. In many properties lead pipes feed into the house, perhaps from a county main, which could be of cast iron, asbestos or some other material. At present there is a 75 per cent. government grant for the replacement of lead pipes with pipes of another material The grant applies from the main to the first tap in the house and no further. That work comes under the heading of water services. There are a number of contractors around the country who specialise in such work. They are not subject to VAT becuse VAT is not payable on water services. Any work to replace lead pipes inside a house should be carried out by a registered plumber, as I have already mentioned in this Chamber. That work is subject to VAT. A contractor has to have a turnover in the region of £40,000—I forget the exact figure—in order to be registered for VAT.

I have been most impressed with the excellent works that I have had done—very often grant-aided—by small one-man or two-man contractors. I sympathise with the mover of the amendment in that I think that this is where things perhaps need to be tightened up. This is partly English legislation, but perhaps I may give an example from Scotland. Persons known as masters of works are appointed by the buildings authorities of Scotland. That is a local authority function. The masters of works are supposed to go around and inspect any work that has been approved for grant. In my area they are very efficient and very much on the ball.

I fear that insisting that some sort of insurance policy is effected will only increase the costs. So, although I sympathise with what has been said in respect of the amendment, I can in no way support it as it is presently worded. To bring in VAT would be undesirable, but to necessarily have an insurance policy would, equally, be undesirable. However, the contractor—whoever he may be—should not be paid by the client until the client has had the work approved, if it is subject to government grant, and has received the grant. We would then know that the work has been properly done. I hope that that is some sort of safeguard.

5.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for so carefully explaining these amendments, which are aimed at curbing the activities of cowboy builders. I have no doubts as to the merits of the aims that the noble Lord put to the Committee, but I question whether the amendments offer the best way of achieving those ends.

Let us consider first the two points that are unique to Amendment No. 139A: VAT registration and the removal of the power to dispense the normal requirement as to estimates. As the Committee will appreciate, VAT registration is not in itself a measure of competence. It is simply a requirement where annual turnover reaches a particular amount, not about £40,000, as my noble friend Lord Balfour said; at present it is £23,000. Builders who choose to restrict the amount of work that they take on or whose businesses are relatively newly established will not need to register for VAT. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter indicated in his most helpful contribution, it is often precisely builders of this type who may be most willing to undertake minor works which are of particular benefit to the elderly. The fact that a business is small does not mean that the person running it is incompetent. I cannot accept that it is right to introduce such a restriction on small businesses, nor to interfere with the consumer's normal right to choose a contractor whose work may have been recommended to him. Surely the main requirement should be that the work is carried out competently and satisfactorily. There are provisions elsewhere in Part VIII to achieve this; for example, an authority's powers to require that work is done to the satisfaction of the authority and to withhold grant payment if it is not. That should please my noble friend Lord Balfour.

Similarly, the power of authorities to waive the requirement that there should be two estimates has been included in Clause 99 to cater for circumstances where there are insufficient builders willing or able to tender for grant works. That is sometimes the case in certain parts of the country and where the works required are not major. Also, increasing numbers of applicants are likely to be advised in their choice of builders by an agency service provided by the local authority or by voluntary or public bodies. This power makes it possible for authorities to exercise discretion in the light of their own knowledge of their area and will enable people to apply for grant who otherwise would be prevented through no fault of their own.

Common to both Amendments Nos. 139A and 139B is the question of insurance-backed guarantee schemes and their approval by the Office of Fair Trading. I understand that the OFT has in fact no legal powers to approve such schemes, and the requirements imposed by these amendments would therefore be impossible to fulfil. The OFT has, however, been working on two related points following the Beat the Cowboys Working Party which reported in July last year. First, it has been developing criteria against which guarantee schemes can be assessed. Secondly, it is preparing a model fair deal contract for building work of less than £50,000. I am pleased to be able to say that substantial progress has been made on both points. But there can be no question of the OFT approving schemes. The Government have made it clear that this is a job for the industry itself.

As to insurance-backed guarantee schemes themselves, I agree that these can help the consumer to identify reputable builders. They are not, however, guarantees of good work—merely guarantees that faulty work will be put right if the contractor goes out of business. More important in securing good quality work in the first place will be the employment of proper professional supervision. Amendments to which I shall talk later will ensure that grant aid is available towards the cost of such professional advice. Furthermore, the services provided for in Clause 150 will give people readier access to assistance in choosing builders and supervising works. The amendments to which I refer will not be capable of being moved should the noble Lord's first amendment be carried, so I put it to the Committee that it would be a self-defeating exercise.

We must also have regard to what the building industry can deliver. As the organisation of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is president —the National Home Improvement Council—points out in its briefing on Part VIII of the Bill, there are simply insufficient builders able to offer such guarantees to ensure that applicants are able to undertake the work that is needed within the period envisaged by the Bill. That may be regrettable, but it is a fact of life with which we must live. Of course, restricting grant aid to those employing builders offering guarantee schemes might encourage more builders to subscribe, but I question how far that is likely when grant-aided work accounts for less than a twentieth by value of all improvement work carried out each year. Nevertheless, the Government are prepared to endorse any viable scheme organised and promoted by the industry to encourage greater use to be made of insurance-backed schemes. We hope that noble Lords will support that.

That takes me on logically to Amendment No. 161 B, which is even more extensive and undesirable than Amendments Nos. 139A and 139B. In the first place, it would leave authorities with no power to require that grant-aided works were completed within a year of approval. A completely open-ended commitment to pay grant at any time would make budgeting impossible for local authorities. Secondly, the amendment gives local authorities no power to waive the conditions that it seeks to impose. Perhaps I should say no more about that, although I should be happy to do so if the Committee so wishes.

Perhaps I may turn lastly to Amendment No. 161A, which has the merit of flexibility since it does not confine the type of guarantee to an insurance-backed guarantee. I appreciate that the intention is to give authorities more control over the standard of grant-aided works. I believe, however, that the amendment would have unwelcome and unintended consequences. The terms of the contract for grant-aided works and the extent of the guarantees offered are a matter for negotiation between the applicant and the builder. The local authority does not own the property or employ the builder and is not responsible for the quality of the work except in so far as it must ensure that works are completed to its satisfaction.

The direct contractual relationship between builder and customer would be interrupted if authorities were to specify the type of gurantee to be given by the builder. The customer would lose his freedom to seek guarantees which met his requirements and if the guarantees later proved inadequate—perhaps because they did not cover a particular defect which had arisen—would have a source of grievance against the authority and possibly even grounds for legal action.

While I agree that, as administrators of the grant system, local authorities must satisfy themselves that grant is spent in the way intended, I do not accept that it is any part of their role to intervene between the applicant and his builder or to diminish the applicant's right to negotiate satisfactory guarantees in respect of works to the property which he owns. So I believe that as it stands the Bill strikes the right balance between freedom of consumer choice, freedom of builders to tender for work and the need to protect public money by ensuring that grant-aided work is of good quality.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may remind him that he mentioned that there were certain schemes under consideration and he referred to a scheme of up to £50,000. In the other place the Minister said that the Government were introducing a minor works grant to help people, especially the elderly, to stay in their homes and that the cost of the work would generally be below £1,000.

That is a much smaller figure than that which would generally be of interest to builders backed by the BEC or any form of insurance guarantee scheme.

I do not know whether the Minister can tell the Committee now or perhaps later what progress is being made in respect of that scheme because it would affect any modification to the amendments that we would have to consider.

The Earl of Caithness

I shall try to bring the noble Lord up to date as soon as possible.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for his persistence in constantly bringing before the House the aggravation that is very widely felt by those who are deprived of their hard-earned money and who are distressed by the activities of those who dupe them and take them for a ride.

Literally every day one can read in the papers of terrible cases which happen. In particular old age pensioners, the disabled and the lonely feel they are not getting a fair crack of the whip. There are people who come along, for example, to repair an allegedly defective roof or who point out that some problem is about to occur. They get into a house and manage to do some damage. The noble Earl knows that aspect of the industry very well—I do not mean the part about getting into a house and causing damage—and because of his professional connections he is well aware of the problem. I do not believe that there is any dispute in any part of the House over the fact that something must be done. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at what these amendments put on the face of the Bill.

It may be irksome but I believe that unless and until a government-backed scheme lays down standards and measures which must be complied with we shall not change the terrible situation that we now have. I scribbled down the points made by the Minister. I think it right that a great deal of the problem is due to the industry itself. It has to put its own house in order and police its own standards.

The Federation of Master Builders is an organisation of small builders, compared with the large builders, although with 20,000 members it does not pretend to cover the whole of the small builders. But no one is more angry or annoyed than registered, qualified and competent builders such as are in the federation when they come across instances in which the federation's own members have been derelict in their duty. Such people are dealt with very harshly by the internal codes of practice which discipline members who fail to do satisfactory work.

The Minister talked in terms of a working party. It was all very impressive until he reached the laughable pay-off that perhaps there will be a scheme which protects or gives redress on work up to £50. The Minister promised the Committee that it should have more information later. There is a big responsibility placed upon the Minister. Moreover this matter concerns not only the National Home Improvement Council, the body with which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is closely in touch and proud to represent, as many of us are, by association; there are also the Institute of Plumbing, the Federation of Master Builders and many others.

I believe that so long as the Government drag their feet, as I believe they are doing, in their desire not to lay too many regulations upon an industry, people will get away with murder. For every instance that comes to light there are 10 others that never come to the ears of the public. For every elderly person who has the courage to go to the police or a neighbour and say, "I have been a fool", there are 10 others who keep quiet from a sense of shame. I believe that it is about time that the Government put a little more spunk into their attack upon those whom none of us like and whom I know the Government do not like.

However, there remains a big responsibility. It is public money that is being given away. The Minister relies upon local authorities being satisfied. But he knows that the building control system has been riddled through and shot to pieces by this Government over the past five years by privatising building control. Control has been taken away from the local authorities. Their moneys are being diminished. There is a greater call upon their officers than ever before. If the Government intend to rely upon local authorities policing the bills that are received and the work that is done, I believe that they are barking up the wrong tree.

I liked the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, put before the Committee. I am very sorry indeed that he has received what I consider to be a dusty reply from the Minister.

Lord Ross of Newport

I should like to put one point to the Minister. Obviously I support very much what has been said on this side of the Committee. One of the suggestions put forward by the noble Earl was that local authorities should not pay out grant money until they were satisfied that the work had been completed.

I want to put the case of the genuine builder who has not been paid for doing a perfectly good job. During the boom period when roofing grants were made available in large amounts and when there were many cowboys operating, quite frankly the local authorities could not control the situation. There were some very genuine builders who completed a perfectly good job and the grant was paid to the client but the client did not pass on the money. That is another area that we might have to watch. I am afraid that there are also rogue clients who do not do what they should do when the local authority pays the money.

When I was a Member of the other place I was made aware of a number of cases in which a superb and genuine builder had done a good job but had not been paid because the council had paid the applicant who had not passed on the money. It is a very difficult area, as I expect the Minister will agree. Therefore it is something else that we shall have to watch.

The Earl of Caithness

Both the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Ross of Newport, have raised important points that need consideration. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham—I am sure that he will—will take the time to read what I have said because I covered quite a number of his points. I hope that he will be reassured by the seriousness with which we take this problem.

However, one does not want to exclude the good and reputable builder whom we all know and who is at the small end doing the small works because he does not reach the VAT target and is not registered for VAT. He is just the sort of man who, in the highly competitive market that exists in some areas of the country, can fulfil this work when others cannot. It would be a great mistake to take action to exclude him.

With regard to the minor works grants mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, perhaps I could draw his attention to Clause 123 which provides for the grant to which he referred. The £1,000 figure is a maximum. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to a figure of £50. I believe that the figure mentioned was £50,000. That covers the small works contract which the Office of Fair Trading is developing in consultation with the industry. I understand that a draft is amost complete. That should help.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I apologise. Obviously I misheard what the Minister said.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

Briefly but nevertheless sincerely I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not propose to delay the Committee much longer. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for his very interesting observations. He mentioned certain difficulties of which I had not been fully aware. I also thank him for his sympathy to the general theme.

I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his very moving presentation in regard to a social matter of considerable significance. It is of significance not only to the poor and the elderly but to the entrepreneurial and honest builder in a small way. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has been good enough to say. I ask leave to reserve the position with regard to the next stage.

As an epilogue, perhaps I may add that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for dealing with the two amendments that were not in the grouping while I was able to stay. I shall let him know the circumstances that required me to leave earlier than I had intended. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 139B not moved.]

5.30 p.m.

Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 140: Page 94, line 33, after ("works") insert ("one of whom will carry out the work;").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 140 deals with the same issue but in a different way. I hope therefore that it may receive sympathetic consideration. We are concerned, on the one hand, to ensure that there should be no limit on the builders, be they large or small, who might apply in a perfectly proper way to do this work. On the other hand, we want to have safeguards both for the local authority which is making the grant and for the occupant. That is the balance that we have to strike.

My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran made some very valuable suggestions which were sympathetically received. However, the Minister explained why they could not be accepted. The amendment now put forward is a very simple alternative. It retains the wording of Clause 99(2)(b) in its entirety; in other words, the local authority can otherwise direct in particular cases but it also maintains the requirement that at least two estimates from different contractors of the cost of carrying out the relevant works should be prepared and provided with the application for the grant.

On reading that, it might be assumed that one of the contractors who has provided the estimates would carry out the work. But this is not stated. In the event, the work could well be given to somebody else.

The proposition is that this should be so stated, and that the work should be done by one of the contractors who has submitted an estimate. This would provide a degree of safeguard to the local authority because it would know that it is providing the grant against estimates that have been properly submitted and considered by it; and to the occupant likewise. This is a very small amendment which goes some way to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. For that reason, I hope that it will be accepted. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I should like to ask the noble Lord a simple question. If neither of the two builders who has submitted estimates wishes to undertake the work, what happens?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I should like to add to that comment, and perhaps the noble Lord will answer both questions. What are we after? We wish to provide safeguards for the spending of money in the correct way. Once one has established that the tender has been proved by the test of tendering to be the right one, why should anyone but the people who have to accept the work when it is done choose who should carry out the work? If the estimates are within the correct financial range, those people should decide who carries out the work.

It is said that they have to choose, whether they wish to or not, after the period of tendering, but, as my noble friend has said, this gives no guarantee for the work. I talk with some authority on this matter. We applied for an improvement grant on properties. Tenders were submitted. We received a very small improvement grant. The people who had put in the tenders, for reasons of their own, could not carry on. We found another equally reputable firm to carry on with the work at the price that had been fixed. I believe that that is proper expenditure of the money and achieves the aim that we seek.

Lord Ezra

Perhaps I may comment on those two remarks. Of course special situations can arise. The wording of the clause makes it clear that the local authority can otherwise direct. That could apply to calling for more estimates. It could direct that in circumstances where neither of the builders who submitted the original estimates was prepared to carry out the work other arrangements should be made.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that work should be carried out against an estimate which has been seen and approved by the local authority; and that if other arrangements have to be made it is left in the clause that the local authority can so direct.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

In that case, perhaps the noble Lord will say what the point is of putting these words into the Bill.

Lord Ezra

It is to make sure that the work shall be done in accordance with estimates properly submitted. Otherwise it could be done by anybody in any circumstances.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Is the noble Lord saying that it is not possible for a second firm to come along, accept the terms of the bill of quantities and the specifications as laid down, and carry them out as effectively as the first one? It is possible to inherit the obligations and the standards that somebody else has tendered for.

Lord Ezra

In those cases, the local authority would no doubt agree.

The Earl of Caithness

There is a very good technical reason why the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled does not fulfil its purpose. However, I have never been one to rely on technical details to dissuade the Committee from accepting an amendment. I do not believe that it is reasonable to shut the door completely on the use of a builder other than the one who provided the estimate. There are a number of situations where this may be unavoidable. Indeed, some have already been mentioned. Perhaps I may add to those.

The original builder may cease to trade, for example, or be unable to undertake the work within the time-scale needed by the applicant. Therefore I am persuaded by the arguments of my noble friends, in particular the point raised by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. It does not matter which builder is used provided that his work is of good quality and that the applicant does not seek to cheat the grant system by having the work carried out more cheaply and by pocketing the difference between actual cost and grant aid.

I agree that these are matters that the new grant system must address. Indeed, the provisions of Part VIII do so. They do so in a number of ways. First, an authority receiving an application must decide for itself the proper cost of any eligible works, and the amount of grant payable is based on that rather than on the figure provided in an estimate. That is in Clause 110. An authority may also require that works are carried out to a specification determined by it. Actual payment of grant is conditional on the works being carried out to the satisfaction of the authority and the applicant must produce a bill or receipt of payment. If the works are or are likely to be carried out at a lower cost than that on which the grant offer was based an authority can reduce, withhold or demand repayment of grant. The situation is therefore well covered.

I sympathise with and share the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of ensuring that grant-aided works are of good quality and preventing abuse of the system. I do not believe however, that this is best done by refusing to acknowledge that a substitute builder may carry out works as competently as the original one, if not more so. Rather, it is best achieved by the safeguards that I have described.

Lord Ezra

The purpose of this amendment, as of the previous two, is to provide safeguards. In replying, the noble Earl stated that there are safeguards elsewhere in the Bill. It will be for the Committee to decide whether in the totality of these provisions there are adequate safeguards to ensure from both the local authority's point of view and the occupant's point of view that the work carried out under this grant system is effectively carried out. I should be quite satisfied if we came to that conclusion. The point of my amendment was to raise that issue. It has been well aired and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.141: Page 94, line 33, after ("works") insert— ("(bb) particulars of any preliminary or ancillary services and charges in respect of the cost of which the grant is also sought;")

The noble Lord said: With leave of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 142, 156 to 159 inclusive, 160, and 170 to 172. All these amendments are directed to the same end: making grants under Part VIII available towards the cost of fees for professional services and charges required in connection with works for which grant aid is sought. Under the existing home improvement grant scheme, grant may be given towards charges incidentally or necessarily incurred in undertaking grant aided renovation work—for example, surveyors' fees or charges for building regulation approval. The Bill as drafted is unclear as to the extent to which similar assistance will be available in respect of Part VIII grants.

The amendments are designed to clarify the position. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.142: Page 94, line 34, at end insert— ("(2A) In this Part "preliminary or ancillary services and charges", in relation to an application for a grant, means services and charges which—

1. (a) relate to the application and the preparation for and the carrying out of works; and
2. (b) are specified for the purposes of this subsection by the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 100 agreed to.

Clause 101 [The interest of the applicant in the property]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 142A, 142B, and 142C: Page 95, line 6, after ("grant") insert ("other than a common parts grant"). Page 95, line 17, after ("grant") insert ("in respect of works to a dwelling"). Page 95, line 20, after ("dwelling") insert ("or (d) in the case of an application for a disabled facilities grant in respect of works to the common parts of a building containing one or more flats, the applicant is a tenant of a flat in the building (alone or jointly with others) but does not have, or propose to acquire, an owner's interest in the flat").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 142D: Page 95, line 20, at end insert— ("or (d) the application is a secure tenant of the local housing authority who has obtained the consent of the authority under Part IV, of the Housing Act 1985 to any improvements.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This debate concerns a whittling away by the Government of the existing rights of tenants. We on this side of the Chamber are very annoyed at what we can see as part of a surreptitious attack upon the tenant and a determination to persuade tenants that they are better off as owner occupiers rather than tenants.

Our amendment seeks to add another category of people who shall not have denied to them the right to apply for a grant. We should bear in mind that in the margin of the Bill the words appear, "The interest of the applicant in the property". Those of us who know council tenants well know that vast numbers of them are fiercely proud of the property they occupy. They do not necessarily own the property. Owner occupation of council property has gone on apace in the last 10 years. I remind the Committee and the Minister that tenants were given the right to improve their properties under Conservative legislation throughout the 1980s. The Government published a tenants' charter in 1980 and enshrined in Section 463 of the Housing Act the right for tenants to improve their property. There has been no dispute, no dubiety and no disagreement on party lines that that was right and proper.

Our argument concerns what tenants have done in latter years to have the right, not to major statutory repair—that will continue to fall as art obligation upon the landlord—but the right in 1990 to improve their property? I am not talking about being reckless or feckless. It will be done in consultation with planning departments if that is required.

We on this side of the Committee may have hold of the wrong end of the stick. But the Government have made great play of giving freedom to the individual, especially the owner occupier. They have tried to dress up their play for the tenant vote, both council and public. But here they are deliberately making it less satisfactory to be a council tenant than the owner of a council property.

There are many ways in which individuals can go about making the home in which they live a better place to live if the council is unable to carry out work not least because of lack of money or grants. When this issue was raised in another place I was sorry to see that Mrs. Bottomley said that it would not be right for council tenants to be eligible for grants to deal with the problem.

We want the Minister to tell us why it is not right for a council tenant to seek to improve a council house whereas it is right and proper for a private tenant to seek a grant to improve the property of a private landlord. We are puzzled. We are particularly puzzled about the trend that the Government have presided over in respect of public money for housing. For example, Exchequer subsidies to local authorities have been cut from £1,393 million in 1980–81 to £496 million in 1988–89. That is a tremendous drop in Exchequer subsidies from central to local government for housing. During the same period the mortgage income tax relief rose from £1,960 million to £4,250 million while local authority housing improvement programme money was reduced from £5,266 million to £1,127 million.

If the Government make the case that they wish to reduce the amount of money from the centre to the locality and if at the edge, in councils, there are enormous pressures on the money that they want to allocate, not least in housing, what is wrong with providing the council tenant with the opportunity to apply, in whatever way it can be circumscribed, for a grant to improve his property? That is what we are asking for. I shall be grateful if the Minister can help the Committee. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has succinctly summed up the amendment as one that seeks to make grant available for improvements which a local authority tenant wishes to make with the consent of his landlord. Clause 101(5) has the effect of combining a tenant's eligibility for grant to those works which he is required by the terms of his tenancy to undertake. This applies to all tenants regardless of who is the landlord. The effect of the amendment therefore would be to put local authority tenants in a better position than private sector tenants as they would be free to apply for grants towards the cost of certain works for which tenants of other landlords, including secured tenants, whose landlord was not a local authority, could not apply.

I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in saying that where tenants are required to carry out repairs, it is clearly appropriate that they should be eligible for grant aid. And now we come to the nexus of the argument. We believe that where works of repair are the responsibility of the landlord and where improvements will benefit him through the enhanced condition of the property, it is proper that he should pay for them, seeking grant aid if appropriate.

Public sector landlords are not eligible for grant aid. They have other sources of central government funding and the allocation of resources includes an element in respect of housing responsibilities. Renovation grant is directed at private sector housing. Where a secure tenant improves his home, the landlord may, at the end of the tenancy, reimburse the cost of the improvements which have enhanced the value of the property. If the works concerned have been carried out with grant aid, the amount of grant given is deducted from any reimbursement. The grant therefore effectively goes to assist the landlord of the secure tenant.

Amendment No. 142D would indirectly give grant aid to local authorities. It is simply not acceptable that renovation grant's should be used in this way when local authorities have other funding. The result must inevitably be to direct funds away from others who have more need. As I have explained, Amendment No. 142D would introduce preferential treatment for local authority tenants. I am sure that, on consideration, this is something which the noble Lord did not intend.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

If I thought that there was a way in which one could give preferential treatment to council tenants I would fully support it. It is not easy to be so even-handed that neither private nor council tenants do not on the margin get some advantage out of the system. "Hypocritical" is too strong a word. In another place, the Minister's honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley said that the Government had made it abundantly clear that they expected local authorities to make proper provision to do all of those things that should be done. The noble Earl knows very well from listening to our debates last night that billions of pounds are required to put public housing right. Never in a month of Sundays will councils have enough money to carry out that which we all say should be done.

Councils do not have the money to improve all of their stock. Individuals may want to make improvements but will need grants. Of course there are dangers and administrative problems. However, it is important that a council tenant should have some sovereignty over improving his house. He does not own it but it is his home. The Government should be ashamed of the way they are gradually taking away the right, the joy, the pleasure and satisfaction of being a council tenant. They are encouraging council tenants to believe that if they want to make their homes better places to live in and the council cannot do it they should exercise the right to buy. It is a shabby way of trying to make council tenants become owner occupiers. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

5.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 142D) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordship divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents 113.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Longford, E.
Airedale, L.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Aylestone, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Blease, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Bottomley, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mishcon, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Monson, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Nicol, B.
	Ogmore, L.
Carter, L.	Oram, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Parry, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Phillips, B.
David, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Dormand of Easington, L.
Evans of Claughton, L.	Raglan, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Rochester, L.
Ezra, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Russell, E.
Fitt, L.	Seear, B.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.]	Shepherd, L.
Galpern, L.	Stedman, B.
Gladwyn, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hampton, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hayter, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Tordoff, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Jeger, B.	Underhill, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Whaddon, L.
Kirkhill, L.	White, B.
Listowel, E.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Lock wood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Dilhorne, V.
Ailesbury, M.	Elliot of Harwood, B.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Faithfull, B.
Allerton, L.	Fanshawe of Richmond, L
Alport, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Ampthill, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Arran, E.	Gainford, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Gisborough, L.
Auckland, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Balfour, E.	Greenway, L.
Beloff, L.	Gridley, L.
Belstead, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Bessborough, E.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Blake, L.
Borthwick, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Havers, L.
Brightman, L.	Henley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Hesketh, L.
Butterworth, L.	Hives, L.
Caithness, E.	Holderness, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Carnock, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Coleraine, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Colwyn, L.	Kinnoull, E.
Cox, B.	Lauderdale, E.
Craigavon, V.	Layton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Long, V.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Lyell, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	McAlpine of Moffatt, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Margadale, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Marley, L.	Savile, L.
Merrivale, L.	Seebohm, L.
Mersey, V.	Selkirk, E.
Monk Bretton, L.	Sharpies, B.
Morris, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Mountevans, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Munster, E.	Strange, B.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Nelson, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Nelson of Stafford, L.
Norrie, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Orkney, E.
Orr-Ewing, L.	Swansea, L.
Oxfuird, V.	Swinfen, L.
Pender, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Perth, E.	Tranmire, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Reay, L.	Trumpington, B.
Renton, L.	Tryon, L.
Richardson, L.	Ullswater, V.
Rippon of Hexham, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Rochdale, V.	Vinson, L.
St. Aldwyn, E.	Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.2 p.m.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144: Page 95, line 27, leave out from ("application") to end of line 28. Page 96, leave out lines 1 to 5.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 144A: After Clause 101, insert the following new clause:

("Common parts grants: preliminary conditions.

(1) A local housing authority may not entertain an application for a common parts grant unless they are satisfied—

1. (a) that, at the date of the application, at least the required proportion of the flats in the building concerned is occupied by occupying tenants; and
2. (b) that the application is either a landlord's common parts application or a tenants' common parts application.

(2) In this Part—

1. (a) an "occupying tenant", in relation to a flat in a building, is a person —
1. (i) who has (alone or jointly with others) such an interest in the flat as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (4) below; and
2. (ii) who occupies the flat as his only or main residence;
2. (b) a "landlord's common parts application", in relation to works to the common parts of a building, is an application for a common parts grant made by a person who—
1. (i) has (alone or jointly with others) such an interest in the building as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (4) below; and
2. (ii) has a duty or power to carry out the relevant works; and
3. (c) a "tenants' common parts application", in relation to works to the common parts of a building, is an application for a common parts grant made, subject to subsection (3) below, by at least three-quarters of the occupying tenants of the building who, under their tenancies, have a duty to carry out, or to make a contribution in respect of the carrying out of, some or all of the relevant works;

and in any case where a tenancy is held by two or more persons jointly, those persons shall be regarded as a single occupying tenant in deciding, for the purposes of paragraph (c) above, whether the application is made by at least three quarters of the occupying tenants referred to in that paragraph.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) above, a tenant whose tenancy is of a description specified for the purpose of that paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State shall be treated as an occupying tenant falling within that paragraph; and a person who falls within paragraph (b)(i) of that subsection and has a duty or power to carry out any of the relevant works may also join in a tenants' common parts application; and, where such a person does join in an application, he is in this Part referred to as a "participating landlord".

(4) The interests referred to in subsection (2) above are as follows—

1. (a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
2. (b) a term of years absolute of which not less than five years remains unexpired at the date of the application;
3. (c) a tenancy to which section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or Schedule 9 to this Act applies (long tenancies at low rents);
4. (d) an assured tenancy, a protected tenancy, a secure tenancy, a protected occupancy or a statutory tenancy; and
5. (e) a tenancy which satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.

(5) The required proportion mentioned in subsection (1) above is three-quarters or such other proportion as may be—

1. (a) prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State; or
2. (b) approved by him, in relation to a particular case or description of case, on application made by the local housing authority concerned.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 102 [Certificate as to future occupation]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 144B to 144K: Page 96, line 9, after ("dwelling") insert ("building or flat"). Page 96, line 14, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 96, line 15, after ("dwelling") insert ("or, as the case may be, a flat in the building"). Page 96, line 24, after ("dwelling") insert ("or, as the case may be, a flat in the building") Page 96, line 28, after first ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 96, line 28, after second ("dwelling") insert ("or, as the case may be, one or more flats in the building"). Page 96, line 36, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 96, line 44, at end insert— ("(7) A local housing authority may not entertain an application for an HMO grant unless it is accompanied by a certificate that the applicant has or proposes to acquire an owner's interest in the house in question and intends—

1. (a) to license the use of part of it as a residence as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) above, or
2. (b) to let part of it as a residence as mentioned in those paragraphs,

or has already so licensed or let part of it."). Page 96, line 44, at end insert— ("(7A) A local housing authority may not entertain an application for a common parts grant unless it is accompanied by a certificate signed by the applicant or, as the case may be, by each of the applicants which—

1. (a) specifies the interest of the applicant or, as the case may be, each of the applicants in the building or in each flat in the building; and
2. (b) certifies that the required proportion, within the meaning of section [Common parts grant: preliminary conditions] above, of the flats in the building is occupied by occupying tenants").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 103 [Certain dwellings and works excluded from grant aid]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 144L: Page 96. line 47, at end insert ("unless it is an application which they are required to approve by virtue of section (Duty to approve applications arising out of certain statutory notices) below").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 144L, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 144W, 144X, 144KK, 144LL and 170A. This group of amendments extends the range of works for which grant would be mandatory, subject to the appropriate test of resources.

The substantive amendment is Amendment No. 144LL, which proposes to insert a new clause making grant mandatory where certain statutory notices are served requiring works of repair or improvement. The notices concerned are repair notices served under Sections 189 and 190 of the Housing Act 1985 and notices served under Section 352 of that Act, as proposed to be amended by Amendment No. 177X, which we shall debate later. A Section 189 notice can be served where a property is unfit for human habitation and an authority considers that repair is the best method of dealing with unfitness. For owner-occupiers grant would be mandatory if a Section 189 notice was served by virtue of the provisions in Clause 107. Amendment No. 144LL makes grant mandatory for landlords where works to remedy unfitness have been required by notice.

Section 190 notices are served in respect of properties which, although not unfit, are in serious disrepair. Where a property is occupied solely by the owner and his family, Section 190 notices will in future be served only if the property is in a renewal area. Section 190 notices will, however, continue to be appropriate where the condition of a property is such as to interfere materially with the personal comfort of an occupying tenant, wherever that property is situated. In both cases, Amendment No. 144LL provides for a mandatory grant in respect of works which have been required in a notice.

Section 352 notices concern work which are required to make a house in multiple occupation fit for the number of occupants; for example, the provision of extra WCs or cooking facilities. Amendment No. 144LL provides for mandatory grant in respect of such works.

All three types of notice must specify a date by which works must be started and a date by which they must be completed. Amendments Nos. 144L, 144W and X, 144KK and 170A therefore remove the restrictions on starting and finishing works which are the subject of a grant application before approval has been given. Clearly, if a notice specifies dates which expire before the six-month period allowed in Clause 110 for reaching a decision on an application, an applicant would be unable to comply with both the notice requirements and the grant requirements. The authority in these circumstances will be fully aware of the condition of the property before work is undertaken and the works which are necessary to repair or improve it because they will have served the notice requiring the works. The restriction on starting and completing works is therefore unnecessary in this context.

Under the existing grant system, grant is mandatory where works are required by notice. The reason for this is that the recipient of the notice is being forced to carry out works in a way and within a time-scale not chosen by himself. I believe it is right that there should continue to be mandatory grant in these circumstances for those landlords who are unable to fund the cost of necessary repairs out of the rental income generated by the property. These amendments provide for such a mandatory grant, subject to the test of resources provided for in Clause 106. I beg to move Amendment No. 144L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 144M to 144V: Page 97, line 2, after ("dwelling") insert ("or house"). Page 97, line 5, after ("dwelling") insert ("or house"). Page 97, line 11, after ("dwelling") insert ("house or building"). Page 97, line 16, at end insert ("house or building"). Page 97, line 17, after ("dwelling") insert ("house or building"). Page 97, line 20, leave out ("the dwelling") and insert ("a defective dwelling which is or forms part of the dwelling, house or building concerned"). Page 97, line 22, leave out ("the") and insert ("that defective"). Page 97, line 22, at end insert ("and (f) if, in the case of an application for a common parts grant, the local housing authority consider that the carrying out of the relevant works will not be sufficient to cause the building to meet the requirements mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 604(2) of the Housing Act 1985"). Page 97, line 30, at end insert— ("(4A) Unless it is an application which they are required to approve by virtue of section (Duty to approve applications arising out of certain statutory notices) below, a local housing authority may not approve an application for an HMO grant so far as it relates to works—

1. (a) which relate to means of escape from fire or other fire precautions; and
2. (b) which are required to be carried out under or by virtue of any enactment (whenever passed).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 104 [Restriction on grants for works already begun]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 144W and 144X: Page 97, line 46, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (1A) and") Page 97, line 49, at end insert — ("(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an application which the local housing authority are required to approve by virtue of section (Duty to approve applications arising out of certain statutory notices) below.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 144Y: Page 98, line 10, after ("107") insert ("108").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 144Y is a drafting amendment. Clause 108 requires a local housing authority to have regard to the age and condition of a property in considering whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out works for which disabled facilities grant is sought. Amendment No. 144Y therefore inserts a reference to Clause 108 into Clause 104(3)(b), thus providing that in considering the condition of the property the authority must consider its condition at the time the application is made. This is in line with the consideration of the physical condition of a property for the purposes of mandatory and discretionary renovation grant which is required under Clauses 107 and 109.

Authorities must have some indication of the point in time at which the condition of the property is relevant. Amendment No. 144Y clarifies this. I beg to move.

Baroness Phillips

Perhaps the Minister can give a further explanation. What time other than the time at which the application is made would one be referring to?

Lord Reay

This is just to leave no doubt at all that the time must be the time when the application is made.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 105 [Owner-occupiers and tenants]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 145: Page 98, line 16, after ("then") insert ("subject to the exclusions by virtue of subsection (4) below,").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 147. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be speaking to Amendment No. 152A which is grouped with these amendments.

My amendment is designed to ensure that the disabled are not means tested—certainly not at the proposed rates. The grants are so low at the moment, and the means of individuals so low, that they could prevent essential adaptations being installed and also inhibit care in the community, which, as the Committee knows, is the Government's policy.

The original consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment envisaged no means test in respect of disabled facilities grants. If the disability is acquired during the course of one's working life and if it is so great as to require expensive adaptatations to the house, most people will suffer significant financial loss when they become disabled. The same is true of course of a disabled dependant. It must be remembered that disabled applicants or dependants will probably spend the rest of their lives disabled. Few, if any, will be able to look forward to employment as a means of making good whatever they are forced to spend on adaptations.

Those people with savings at the time of the disablement can only look forward to seeing their savings disappear, particularly as they have to spend them on disabled aids that the rest of us do not need and generally on a more expensive lifestyle. They do not have the energy or ability to look for cheaper goods. If it is pouring with rain an able-bodied person can run from shop to shop. A person in a wheelchair will go into one shop and take whatever is on offer, no matter what the price is; otherwise he or she will get soaked and contract pneumonia. I do not believe that the Government wish to solve their problems in this respect by having every disabled person dying of pneumonia. My noble friend on the Front Bench would get short shrift from his other relatives if that happened to his noble kinswoman.

The recent OPCS survey showed that only 31 per cent. of people under pension age with disabilities were in paid work compared with 69 per cent. of the general population. Only 2 per cent. of those with severe disabilities were in work. In addition, earnings of those who do have jobs are generally substantially below the earnings of able-bodied people doing equivalent work. Some 4.5 million disabled adults live in households where there are no earners.

Generally speaking, the cost of administering the means tests envisaged would, in my opinion, equal if not exceed the cost of the grants that might be saved. I beg to move.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Carter

I was pleased to add my name to these amendments. In fact, I had my name to both Amendments Nos. 145 and 147 but it only appears on Amendment No. 145.

One of the disadvantages of the means testing scheme proposed is that the scales are based on non-disabled people. The principle of means testing for disabled facility grants seems to me to run directly counter to the idea of grants, as of right, to disabled people irrespective of income to meet the extra costs of disability.

The proposals for means testing could seriously disadvantage the elderly and disabled people. The OPCS survey showed that two-thirds of disabled people are over 60; that is, 4 million people out of a total of 6 million. Adaptations for disability are totally different from general renovation and improvement work. I should like to add to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Why have the Government reversed the proposals in the 1987 consultation paper on home improvement policy which stated that adaptation work for disabled people would not be subject to a test of resources? This has been reversed in the 1989 paper and I am sure that the Committee would like to know the reason for that reversal of policy.

The Government should state the rationale for means testing disability facilities grants where the need for the grant arises directly from disability, where the adaptation is completely unrelated to means or the value of the property and is necessary entirely as a result, and only as a result, of the disability.

I stress that the currently proposed means test levels, which echo those of the new income support scheme, do not take adequate account of the costs of disability. Disability premiums may meet the costs for substantially disabled people but they are well below the extra cost of daily living incurred by the more severely disabled. Research for the Disablement Income Group has shown that disabled people living on average earnings can find that 25 per cent. or more of their income is spent on the extra costs of disabled daily living and thus is not available for ordinary expenditure.

It seems that there is a principle at stake as well as the details of the scheme. The central point for the Minister to answer is why there has been this reversal of policy and to explain the rationale for bringing disabled people into means testing for disabled facility grants when they are only required because of the adaptations which result from that person's disability.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I too support this amendment. I am wholly against means testing for any person with severe disability. As has been so well said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, disabled people have many extra expenses which may be a millstone round their necks.

The very poor do not want it to be known that they are very poor. They may well be poor but some are also very proud. People just above the means test level are usually those who have worked hard, saved hard and put some money into the bank. I have met many of them. Some are teachers and some have been nurses. They contract some dreaded disease such as multiple sclerosis and everything goes wrong for them. The problem of being means tested on top of such a severe disability, and having very little to look forward to because the disability is going to get worse, makes it a very mean means test.

Perhaps the Government are worried about the very rich. I believe there are probably few very rich disabled people. In any case, they are paying a large amount of tax so I do not think that is too much of a problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said so well on a previous amendment, the cost of administering the scheme will not be worth while and it is only being mean to disabled people.

The Earl of Caithness

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, would wish me to comment on Amendment No. 152A at this stage.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am glad that the Minister has raised the point. I may speak again, depending on his reply. I believe that his comments would be well made now, as he has suggested.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Though the amendment has not been spoken to yet, I believe that it will be easier for me to comment now.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 145, 147 and 152A is either to disapply the test of resources in the case of an application for a disabled facilities grant, or, in the case of Amendment No. 152A, to permit an authority to waive such a test in hardship cases. The first two amendments, Nos. 145 and 147, also disapply the test with respect to renovation grants where a member of the applicant's household is a disabled person. The test would, however, still apply where a disabled person himself applied for a renovation grant.

I fully understand that disabled people incur expenditure that is not incurred by the able-bodied, and that the needs associated with their disability—for example, special diets—give rise to increased expenditure. The test of resources which we propose takes account of this, in that the housing benefit system in which the test is based allows an additional premium for disability. The £20 premium which is to be added for grant purposes would therefore be in addition to the disability premium.

The regulations provided for in Clause 105 give flexibility to set additional premiums and to take account of the fact that those who care for disabled people also face higher costs. There is also scope to take into account the fact that those who are disabled may not have access to loans on such favourable terms as other people. I cannot accept, however, that it is fair to disabled people or others that no account should be taken of an ability to pay. Those who are able to contribute to the cost of adaptations should contribute, and I believe they would wish to do so.

This is the position for able bodied people. With due allowance for disability needs, it should also be the position for disabled people. Failing that, an applicant who has sufficient resources could receive a far higher grant than an applicant who is poorer but able-bodied. I do not believe we should introduce injustice of this sort and I do not believe that disabled people would wish to benefit in this way.

Of course, many of those who are disabled will not be able to contribute. They will benefit fully from the new system, since it will be possible to get assistance with the full cost of the works rather than with a percentage of the cost as at present. Furthermore, unlike the present system, there is no arbitrary limit on the amount of grant which can be given. If the works are needed, then the costs of carrying them out will be fully taken into account.

As regards Amendment No. 152A, this would enable an authority to waive the test of resources in the case of a disabled facilities grant in similar circumstances to those sought by Amendment No. 138J, the hardship case, which we have already discussed. In resisting that amendment I explained that it was important for a grant applicant in one area to be treated under the resource test as far as possible in the same way as a fellow applicant in a neighbouring authority. Amendment No. 152A breaches that principle, and it would be consistent of the Committee to reject it on the same grounds as those on which Amendment No. 138J was rejected.

I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, where he is seeking some flexibility in the way in which disabled people are to be assessed for grant purposes under this clause. That is why the Government intend to enable social service authorities to continue to give additional assistance under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in a limited number of circumstances even where the test of resources has been applied by the housing authority.

We are giving more detailed thought as to how these circumstances might be defined, but they might include, for example, those where an applicant is undertaking the care of a disabled person on behalf of another authority, or where an additional financial burden might push the disabled person into residential care. There may be other cases, and we shall wish to consider these very carefully against the background of our general policy towards care in the community. I hope that what I have said provides some assurance to the Committee that the Government are not inflexible on the question of potential hardship cases.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the more fundamental question of why the Government were going back on their proposal in the consultation paper not to apply the test of resources in the case of adaptations for disabled people. The reason is quite simple. We believe that the test which I outlined in debating Clause 98 of the 13i11 provides the best and fairest way of directing resources to those least able to afford the costs of necessary work.

It means that we can direct maximum help to where it is most needed, unencumbered by arbitrary cost restrictions on the works themselves or by the imposition of a ceiling on the amount of grant as under the existing system. It is fair, in that it requires those disabled people able to afford some, or occasionally all, of the cost of the works to contribute as they would if they were able-bodied. Resources for adaptation work, as I am sure the Committee appreciates, are not infinite. We might wish that that were so. But in the real world local authorities need to find some way in which they can direct help to those who most need it. The test of resources which we are proposing helps them achieve that in as fair a way as possible.

We are fully alive to the need to treat disabled people fairly in the test of resources. We are also conscious of the need for flexibility in hardship cases. I believe that our proposals strike the right balance.

We are now dealing with Clause 105, which is a very important provision. There are more amendments to come from those who have concerns in this area. Perhaps I may say what we are doing for the disabled under the Bill now before the Committee. We have had the benefit of a valuable contribution today. I wish to summarise what we are doing because it may be helpful to the Committee. First, the Bill provides for the first time a grant specifically designed to assist disabled people with adaptations. Currently, adaptations are simply one of very many types of works for which general improvement grants are available. A separate provision such as that provided by Clause 108 gives clear recognition to the specific needs of disabled people.

Secondly, the Bill provides for a wider range of measures for which grant is mandatory, providing of course that the applicant is unable to afford some or all of the costs of the work. In drawing up a list of purposes for which grant is mandatory we have sought to align it as far as possible with the provisions in the basic fitness standards provided in Schedule 8 to the Bill which govern the circumstances in which grant is mandatory for able-bodied people. The principle of treating disabled and non-disabled people alike is an important one, and I trust that the Committee shares that view.

Thirdly, we have in addition retained a provision which enables local authorities to give at their discretion a grant for the purpose of making a dwelling suitable for the accommodation or employment of a disabled person. That is a very wide provision indeed. It is just not realistic to seek to include all these matters as part of mandatory grant provisions. A discretionary grant also enables proper account to be taken of local circumstances and priorities.

Fourthly, the Bill provides for an explicit consultation process between the local housing authority and the welfare or social services authority. This fits in well with the role that we envisage for local authorities as regards community care. It will encourage sensible arrangements to be made as to the services provided for disabled people within and between authorities.

Fifthly, there are no restrictions in the Bill as to who may apply for a disabled facilities grant and which properties are eligible. For example, the 10-year age limitation on dwellings eligible for renovation grants does not apply in the case of adaptations; neither does the restriction on local authority tenants applying for a grant. They will be eligible on the same terms as any other tenant or owner. Neither need a tenant have a repairing obligation, as in the case of a renovation grant.

Finally, we have built real flexibility into the test of resources. If experience shows that the new system provides problems in practice for disabled people, then the Secretary of State will have the power to prescribe alternative measures by regulation. We are committed to learning from the new system and to adjusting the details as necessary as we do so. Therefore I commend the Bill as it stands to the Committee.

As Members of the Committee will understand, we have already made significant improvements for the disabled. I know that this is of great concern to everyone, as indeed are the amendments which will follow. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, I must say that I look forward to hearing the arguments and I am quite prepared to discuss them when dealing with the forthcoming amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, among others, which will be moved between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. This is a most important area. It is only right that I should listen to what Members of the Committee have to say at this stage.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I have not, as yet, moved Amendment No. 152A, but perhaps it would be in order for me to speak to the amendment now as the Minister referred to it in his general comments as regards what the Bill does or does not do for the disabled.

I freely admit that the Government have moved some way. Surely, we are not asking for too much when we ask them to go just a little further. We are not in the business of trying to score party points as regards this issue. In my view there is a general feeling both here and in another place that the Government would be well advised to accede to the requests being made by way of these amendments.

I have no wish to make a long speech or to try to transcend some of the remarks already made from all sides of the Chamber—from the Government's own Benches and by colleagues sitting behind me. The problem has been covered admirably. I ask for but a few moments of the Committee's time to quote what was said by a Government Back Bencher in another place—a predecessor to the Minister in the department, Sir George Young. He said—

The Earl of Caithness

With respect, I do not think that it is in order for the noble Lord to quote remarks made by a Back Bencher. As I understand it, the only person one can quote is a Minister.

Lord Dean of Beswick

In that case, perhaps I should paraphrase what was said. The remarks made were based upon representations from the Association of Disabled Professionals stressing that unlike other changes to a building, adaptions needed by disabled people do not necessarily add to the value of a house. Indeed, quite often it is the reverse. Therefore the grants are in a different category.

Secondly, it was stressed that much of what was being discussed was essential if a disabled person was to be able to live in the community. Thirdly, mention was made of the fact that some of the work carried out is not for the benefit of the householder but for the benefit of someone else who happens to live in that particular home.

For those reasons it was thought that these grants should be in a category separate from ordinary, run-of-the-mill improvement grants. It was pointed out that disabled people do not want treatment which cannot be justified and that they do not want to be considered as a totally different case: they wish only to arrive at the starting post at the same time as everyone else. Surely, that is not asking too much.

The Minister should be prepared to take the matter away and consider carefully the arguments which have been put forward tonight with a view to bringing forward something more sympathetic than the Government have been prepared to consider thus far.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to explain the matter a little further. My noble kinsman said that he wanted disabled people and non-disabled people to be treated the same. That is the whole point of the argument before us. Disabled people are not the same and cannot be until they receive extra money to bring them up to the level of everyone else. The point of trying to obtain a disablement income pension for such people is to bring them up to the relevant level so that they are at the same starting point as everyone else. Indeed, my noble kinsman has just said that. If Members of the Committee read Hansard tomorrow they will see that that is so. I am not the same as he because, when I leave this Chamber, I cannot walk out into the street. He can. We cannot be the same, however much I may wish that that were so. It is so difficult to get people to understand that point. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has just mentioned it, as indeed did my noble kinsman —but he did not understand it.

Baroness Phillips

I should like to follow on from the remarks which have been made, especially those of the noble Baroness. I have gone through a phase of what might be called "temporary disablement" and I have not yet received any money from the one who knocked me down! I notice that several Members of the Committee are on the board of the particular group to which I refer and therefore I am giving them due warning across the Chamber.

However, quite seriously, the owner-occupier of a house has to spend a lot of money on a conversion. I had to spend much money in this respect. It might be only a simple conversion to the bath or to the kitchenette. I believe that everyone should undergo such a period. It is a jolly good experience; but, it is expensive. I cannot travel on public transport any more. I am too nervous about getting off the escalators and I certainly do not want to leap on to a moving bus. Such adaptations sounds simple, but they all add up to a lot of money. As for saying that they can be obtained on equal grounds and that if you are able-bodied but poor you are the same as a disabled person, really, there is no comparison.

For heaven's sake, do not the Government want to be seen as caring? Do they always want to be seen as the kind of people who only care about money? Can they not just for once recognise that this problem will never concern a large group of people. We are not talking about millions of people. People living in owner-occupied houses—I live on a small estate—are the very people who would be too proud to ask for anything which they felt had to be taken through the usual process of filling in a series of forms, and so on. Such people would like to know that they will automatically receive something without being made to feel that it is a charity given by a munificent local authority. I plead with the Government. The Minister has said that he will listen to what is said. There are five more amendments to be dealt with: he will have to listen to a good deal more in this respect.

Lord Carter

I found the Minister's answer extremely disappointing. I know that he is personally sympathetic as regards this matter but the Government's reply was not satisfactory. It would assist the Committee if the Minister were to state in terms the principle which the Government are adopting. Are they saying that they do not accept the principle of grants as of right to disabled people, irrespective of income, to meet the extra costs of disability? That factor is fundamental in the consideration of disability income and the noble Earl will realise as we debate the OPCS reports and the review of the benefits which the Government are introducting that this will be a central argument.

Secondly, it may assist Members of the Committee to make up their minds if the figures of the means test are considered. The proposed thresholds suggest that a single disabled person should be able to afford adaptations which cost £5,000 if he earns £8,865 a year. Such people can start to contribute to adaptations with incomes of only £3,567 a year. That is really not reasonable in the light of current interest rates and the heavy extra costs of disability to which reference has been made. Nor is it feasible for a married couple, one of whom is disabled, to contemplate a second mortgage to pay for adaptations which cost £5,000 when their income is £10,000 or more, or for them to start contributing towards the cost of the adaptations on an income of just under £5,000 a year.

In the light of such figures I must ask the Minister to take the matter away and reconsider his previous answer.

The Earl of Caithness

I obviously did not make myself clear. I went out of my way to say that I wanted to listen to all the arguments on Clause 105. I heard clearly what the noble Lord said. It is difficult to reply to him when we start getting into the details of the figures without having comparable figures in front of us. I offered to discuss the matter between now and another stage. Some valuable points have been raised. I wish to listen to all the arguments on Clause 105 and then I can report back to my right honourable friend. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hesketh is also listening with great care. It would benefit us both to hear all the arguments. I hope that the Committee will not divide on any of the amendments because that would rather spoil the purpose of the exercise to which I alluded earlier.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I may have missed this if the Minister has already told us, but have the Government had any consultations or discussions with RADAR or any of the other organisations which cover disabled people? If they have not, that is a pity, and why have they not?

The Earl of Caithness

I am sure that we have had many discussions with many people, but if we have not discssed some of these matters with RADAR, that will have been brought to our attention and someone will be doing something about it.

Lord Swinfen

I suggest that my noble friend, or his officials, have discussions with the Disablement Income Group, which makes a point of looking at the financial aspects of disability.

We have had a long debate on Amendment No. 145. A great deal has been said. A great deal needs further study. I am therefore not going to press my amendment this evening. I am going to read what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said. However, I reserve my position to come back with the same two amendments, or with improved amendments, at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 145A: Page 98, line 16, after ("then") insert ("unless the applicant is an exempt person as defined in section 105(4A),").

The noble Lord said: Despite what the Minister said, for which I am grateful, I hope that I may be allowed to speak to my amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147A which is consequential on Amendment No. 145A. The object of the amendment is to exempt people over the age of 75 from having to go through all the procedures of a means test (filling in all the forms) to claim grant.

I am not at all opposed to the idea that scarce resources should be targeted towards those in need and so I shall not argue that the principle of targeting is wrong. However, I feel that a special case can be made out for the over-75s. That topic was fully discussed when we discussed Amendment No. 138J. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put forward strongly and well why people who are entitled to apply are not applying for grants.

When the Minister replied I was even more convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. It is a complicated matter. One has to decide who is eligible and what the levels of income and capital are. I am not surprised that many people do not apply.

People over the age of 75 living in a house which needs considerable repair or improvement are rather apt to say, "Well, it will see me out and so I am not going to bother". They go on, everything gets worse and they end up in an unhappy state. The 1986 survey showed that 25 per cent. of the properties occupied by that age group need substantial repairs or improvements. That is a large proportion. There is no doubt that people of that age group occupy the worst housing.

Another argument in favour of the amendment is that it will greatly simplify the achievement of the Government's objectives. I need not say a great deal more. All sides of the Chamber are naturally extremely keen to see that old people end their lives happily and in comfort. This is not merely special pleading. We all feel that it is our duty.

We are also talking about the housing stock. If those houses are not repaired many of them will become uninhabitable and will presumably have to be mown down. There is a strong practical argument for the amendment. There is no doubt that the houses occupied by the elderly are the worst in the country and are in need of urgent repair.

The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who is not in the Chamber at the moment strongly supports the amendment. He unfortunately had an urgent engagement at 5.45 p.m. He said that he did not think that he would be able to be here. I want the Committee to realise that he strongly supports the amendment. I beg to move.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I think that the Committee was reasonably happy with the statement made by my noble friend the Minister on the earlier batch of amendments: that he wished to have an opportunity to consider and consult on the points which arose on them. For that reason, I was not going to say anything specific on most of them, but I should like to enter a reservation against the proposal which has just been spoken to on Amendment No. 147A. That moves from disability in its various forms, with which all Members in all parts of the Committee obviously have the greatest sympathy, to exempting on the basis of age; in particular, at age 75.

I perhaps should declare an interest. Many people of that age, and a great deal older, are perfectly fit and capable of earning. The Committee knows many people in that category. I need only remind the Committee that the late Winston Churchill formed his second government at the age of 76. Members opposite will not accept this, but it was a good government.

It is a great mistake to confuse the issue which we have been discussing on the basis of disability, with all the additional expense which flows directly from disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said by making also a case for an age concession.

As I have said, many people of well over 75 are capable of looking after themselves and earning. It is a mistake to bracket them with the disabled. It also has the great disadvantage that it would greatly increase the numbers. My noble friend can probably say how many people over 75 there are in this country. There are a great many. It is the happy experience of some of us to see people whom we know attaining the age of 100. That is a matter for great congratulation.

I hope very much that in his consideration of the matter my noble friend will not accept the views of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, which bracket age with disability, because that simply is not true.

Lord Shaughnessy

I hope that I can speak generally, but I am also speaking specifically to Amendment No. 145A. As I understood it, the Minister wants to hear the arguments and discussions concerning the generality of the proposed amendments. I hope that I am in order in speaking a little more generally, as he did. I support the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in his amendment, or at any rate in its intention. I can understand the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made that a specific cut-off age might create difficulties. I hope that the Minister will take into account special consideration for people of a greater age, let us say, or of advanced years, who have misgivings about whether it is right or proper or whether they have the capacity—financial or even emotional—to set about renovating their premises which badly need it. The litany of bureaucratic procedures which the noble Earl outlined in the discussion of Amendment No. 138J was quite frightening to me, possibly because I did not understand the procedures.

I hope that among other considerations the Minister will take the intention of the amendment to heart and perhaps consider what might be done in connection with this and other amendments which point in the same direction under this clause of the Bill.

Lord Ross of Newport

Perhaps I may speak to the later amendment in my name, Amendment No. 146A, since it seems to me that we are all talking about the same subject. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee and I shall move that amendment when we come to it.

Amendment No. 146A is a slight variation on the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, which would apply to elderly tenants of 75 years and over who come under Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. It concerns properties held on lease of seven years or more whose tenants have very onerous repairing responsibilities. There is a real problem in London in particular with some of these properties. Nationally less than 10 per cent. of the housing market consists of private rented accommodation and approximately 1 per cent. of those will be tenants with full repairing responsibilities. So we are referring to a small group of tenants. However, the worst housing conditions are concentrated in this sector with the highest number of dwellings lacking basic amenities.

The 1983 GLC survey suggested that 40 per cent. of those living in the private rented sector are pensioners. Although this group is diminishing, those who remain live in very old property suffering from severe disrepair. Those elderly private tenants who have saved for their future, many of whom are no longer eligible for housing benefit, fear that they may have to leave their private rented accommodation and look on their savings as their security for the future.

I realise that an amendment to this Bill gives those people some protection but it puts them on to market rents. I do not think that some of the people about whom I am talking will ever be able to face up to market rents. I am speaking really for Kensington and Chelsea Staying Put for the Elderly Limited. Several landlords in Kensington and Chelsea have taken possession proceedings against tenants who have not carried out their repairing responsibilities.

I shall not go further because we have had a long debate and I do not wish to burden the Minister with even further statistics. However, I ask him to give consideration to this and to take on board the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, which I very much support, that anybody over 75 should be eligible. I do not think the point was made earlier in the debate tonight and many people do not want to be bothered to go through all the procedures.

I travel on British Rail with a third off the fare, and so do many noble Lords. I imagine nearly everybody present tonight does so. If we obtain a railcard for £15 we get a substantial discount at the age of 60. So I do not think that this proposal is so generous to people over 75. Not many people will take it up. It would certainly help some, particularly those people of whom I am talking. I am sure that nearly everybody sympathises if they have any knowledge of housing conditions, particularly in London but also in other parts of the country such as Liverpool, which has many similar cases. It will make it much more difficult if people have to go through this terrible means testing procedure.

As I indicated earlier, having seen some of the housing benefit forms recently, it is not easy to answer the questions. Many people say, "I just can't be bothered with it". I listened the other day to somebody who was applying for a grant for spectacles and he gave up in the end. This was on the radio. He went through the rigmarole and explained how many different applications he made, how many times they came back with notes saying, "You haven't answered question 3 correctly", or something similar. In the end that person paid £60 and bought the spectacles himself. That is what we are talking about.

Able people of 75 and more would possibly not go for a grant, anyway. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is fair enough. I think that Mr. Gladstone formed his last administration when he was over 80. I paid for my house roofing grant because at that time for some reason the Government made it discretionary on local authorities as to whether or not they gave a 90 per cent. grant. The Government said at lhat time that it would only last a year, so many authorities did not take it up. The Government extended it for a further year and even another six months after that. All local authorities then took it up.

I have some sympathy with earlier amendments on the issue. I saw other people who were perfectly capable of paying for their roofs receiving substantial 90 per cent. grants and having their roofs done. I thought that as an MP I had better set an example so I paid £3,000 for my own repairs. I could have done with the money at the time. I had to borrow it from the bank. Nevertheless, I think that there is a strong case for those over 75 to receive help right across the board. It is simple. We could do it that way and these people would then also be included.

Lord Swinfen

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will pay particular attention to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on the preservation of the housing stock. It is far cheaper to repair a building than to replace it. The old adage that a stitch in time saves nine works for the nation as well as for the housewife.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. Successive reports issued by a variety of bodies, such as Faith in the City, issued by the Duke of Edinburgh's commission, all point quite clearly to the serious and accelerating deterioration of our housing stock. Its condition is accelerating downwards fast because this sector is where the oldest people in the population live. The amendment would be a start towards alleviating that.

Within this clutch of amendments there are variations. When I spoke to Amendment No. 152A I did not put the point because I thought that the Minister might respond in a general sense and take the principle back. However, the sole objective of that amendment was to let local authorities decide whether they should apply the discretionary criteria, if to do so would injure the applicant. In other words, we should let the local authorities decide their own policies. If they wish to discard the discretionary grant, let them be free to do so. Nobody could accuse local authorities of throwing money away willy-nilly. They do not have that amount of money, anyway. I think it is right that the social services department and the housing authorities should be able to look into a case and say that the provisions should be totally disregarded. I make that point because I did not do so before.

On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and other noble Lords have said in this Committee, I think the case has been made that to provide this for the over-75s would be a good investment. In my opinion it would reduce the serious deterioration taking place in properties occupied by people at the top end of the age scale.

Lady Kinloss

I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in his amendments. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I can think of several friends over 75 who have great difficulty in filling in forms if they do not have help. I am sure that many people over 75 do not receive help; they have no one to help them. So I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment with sympathy.

7 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion we have had. It has been extremely useful. As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, I have no doubt that the income and resources normally available to those over 75 and living in properties in a poor condition are generally small. If that is the case, they have nothing to fear from the test of resources which I described earlier.

The test would deliver in the great majority of cases sufficient to cover the full costs of any necessary work. But there are exceptions, for example, where an elderly person had moved into a smaller house and in the process had acquired a substantial capital sum from the sale of his previous house. It would be difficult to justify a complete exemption, particularly as there are others who may also feel that they are a special case.

Having said that, I should like to read what the noble Lord has said and what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said as well as the comments of other Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, reminded me of something I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. I repeat that we are looking very carefully indeed at the opportunities there are for passporting particular groups of people whose needs have already been assessed for other purposes under the test we are proposing. If it makes sense to do so for any particular group without setting an unfortunate precedent, then the regulations will be drafted accordingly. I hope that is some comfort to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, who was concerned that some elderly people experienced difficulty in filling in the form. We may be able to help them in that area.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, for explaining the background to Amendment No. 146A. As I understand it, the concern which he has expressed is on behalf of a fairly small group of statutory tenants who have retained repairing obligations from an earlier lease. However, because they are statutory tenants they no longer retain any equity in their properties against which to secure a loan, should that be necessary.

I readily accept that this category of tenants, although small in number, appears to be in a difficult position. However, I am much less sure that we should therefore exempt all private tenants over pensionable age from the test of resources as this amendment would achieve. In most cases I would expect the registered rent which a tenant has to pay to reflect his repairing obligations. Such tenants may have grounds for appeal against the level of rent if they consider that that is not the case. As they have repairing obligations, they will be eligible to apply for a grant under the provisions in the Bill. If they are on a low income and have few savings, they are likely to be entitled to a generous grant in respect of essential repairs and improvements. If they have savings over £5,000, it would seem only reasonable for them to make some contribution towards the cost of the work, particularly if the level of savings reflects in some way their failure to maintain or repair the property as they were required to do under the terms of their lease.

The test of resources also takes into account the position of tenants who may have little or no equity against which to secure a loan. That is why, case for case, tenants should be entitled to a larger grant than owner occupiers who should be able to borrow on more favourable terms. Nevertheless, I wish to consider what the noble Lord has said as I promised earlier. That takes me on to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I put Amendment No. 152A in a slightly different category because the principle of it was decided by a vote earlier this afternoon. Although I heard what the noble Lord said, I place that amendment in a slightly different category from the others we have been discussing.

Lord Seebohm

In view of what the Minister said earlier and just now, I feel it is not appropriate to divide the Committee. I was rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke as, if I had known he intended to speak I should have given some more figures and statistics and made a longer speech. There are figures for instance which show that about 20 per cent. of those who are entitled to apply at present for house repair grants do not do so. Thirty per cent. of those aged over 75 who are entitled to the grant do not apply for it. Such people may not be disabled but they are in a different category. That category does not stop at the age of 75. We are not just talking about people who are 75 years old but about a whole range of people from 75 to 100. I believe my case is much stronger than I made out at the outset.

The Earl of Caithness

In view of the statistics that the noble Lord has mentioned which are always difficult to grasp as they are said, perhaps he could set them out more fully in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with a copy to me. That may be helpful to both of us.

Lord Seebohm

I shall do so. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 146: Page 98, line 26, at end insert— ("(c) make provision that the minimum payment of grant should not be less than 20 per cent. of eligible expenditure where the financial resources of an applicant does not exceed £20,000 or such other amount as the Secretary of State shall determine from time to time.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is a variation of what we have just discussed. I shall be brief. I believe it is now understood in the Chamber that an important principle has been breached in the Government's proposals in the Bill because until now grant has been paid with the intention of improving houses. Therefore, the major criterion has been the condition of the house and the secondary one the income of the occupiers. That has now been reversed.

Many organisations who operate in this field fear that unless a basic grant is allowed the home improvement grant system will wither and die through lack of take up. There is some comparison with the home insulation grants which have been changed to a similar system whereby only those receiving social benefit are eligible for such a grant. During the past year the take up for insulation grants under the revised system has been drastically reduced. That has to be bitterly regretted as it does not make any sense when we are concerned with energy saving. It is now feared that a similar effect will occur when the home improvement grants become 100 per cent. means-tested.

The amendment before the Chamber makes a proposal that would help to achieve the Government's wishes without many of the disadvantages that a straightforward means test without a basic grant would entail. The amendment states that there should be: ("(c) provision that the minimum payment of grant should not be less than 20 per cent of eligible expenditure where the financial resources of an applicant does not exceed £20,000 or such other amount as the Secretary of State shall determine from time to time."). In other words, our aim is to give an initial incentive. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I wish to put a few questions to him as that will help me when I come to consider this matter later. It is not clear whether the £20,000 to which he refers as a cut-off point concerns annual income, savings or both. Perhaps he could elucidate on his thoughts on that matter.

However, I shall deal now with the substance of the amendment. The noble Lord argued that a minimum grant is needed to ensure that those in poor condition property will carry out the work and contribute their share of the costs. I am not sure how he arrived at the figure of 20 per cent. I wonder what evidence he has that 20 per cent. is the right figure. I contend that we do not know for sure whether an incentive of that kind is needed at all —after all, the repairs and improvements are invariably for the specific benefit of the applicant —nor whether the 20 per cent. the noble Lord mentioned is sufficient or insufficient. I should therefore be reluctant to go along with such a provision on the face of the Bill.

However, I understand the noble Lord's main concern. I can reassure him that we shall now monitor very carefully the practical effects of the new test and its application as it progresses. The great advantage of dealing with this by regulation is that we can make adjustments as necessary without having to come back before the Chamber with primary legislation.

Lord Ross of Newport

I shall not delay the Committee. As I understand it, the £20,000 covers total assets. On the same basis, I believe that £3,500 is the limit below which one qualifies for social security. However, that may have been changed. The figure of 20 per cent. was rather picked out of the air, but it constitutes one-fifth. I know that the Minister has great agricultural experience so he may know that a figure of 20 per cent. has encouraged some farmers to take up grants. Therefore, the figure was chosen as being an incentive to take up a grant. I am grateful for the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 146A to 147A not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 105, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of Balfour

Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the beginning of Clause 105, which reads: Where an application for a grant is accompanied by an owner-occupation certificate, a tenant's certificate or a special certificate". I wonder what a special certificate is. I cannot find any reference to it in the Bill. I feel that people reading the Bill should be given some indication of what a special certificate is.

The Earl of Caithness

If I flip quickly through the Bill and I look at Clause 102(5), I see that "special certificate" is defined.

The Earl of Balfour

I am most grateful.

Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 106 [Landlords]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 144Z and 144AA: Page 98, line 37, after ("applies") insert ("(a)"). Page 98, line 39, at end insert ("and (b) Where an application for an HMO grant is accompanied by a certificate under section 102(7) above; and (c) where, by virtue of section 128 below, sections 101 and 102 above do not apply to an application for a grant: and (d) where an application for a grant is a landlord's common parts application").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 144Z and 144AA. The amendments have already been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

7.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144BB: Page 98, line 44, after ("(b)") insert ("if the dwelling is currently let or subject to a statutory tenancy, the amount of the rent payable and of any increase which might reasonably be expected in that rent to take account of the relevant works, when completed; (bb) if paragraph (b) above does not apply").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 144BB, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 144CC. The amendments concern the test of resources to be applied to landlords.

As Clause 106 is currently drafted, a local housing authority is required to have regard, inter alia, to the amount of rent which could be obtained if the property were let on an assured tenancy. That is reasonable where the property is vacant at the time. It is, however, possible that a landlord will wish to seek grant aid with respect to works to a property which is already let on a statutory tenancy or which is already let subject to conditions about the level of rent rises. In those circumstances it will not be reasonable to test a landlord as if he could obtain market rent for an assured tenancy when the works are completed, since rent increases will be constrained by the terms of the tenancy. Amendment No. 144BB therefore inserts additional matters to which an authority must have regard where the property concerned is already let: the amount of rent payable and the increased rental income which may reasonably be expected to accrue as a result of the improvements or repairs for which grant aid is sought.

As I have explained, the test of resources for landlords requires an assessment to be made of future rental income from a property. Authorities will therefore need to have access to advice on prevailing rent levels. Amendment No. 144CC empowers authorities to seek the advice of rent officers in operating the test of resources. It also empowers the Secretary of State to make an order extending the functions of rent officers to include giving advice in connection with the test for landlords.

The amendments will ensure that the test provided for in Clause 106 can be administered fairly. They provide authorities with an informed basis on which to reach decisions on rental income and enable them to take full account of the terms of existing tenancies. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the Committee what has prompted the amendment. Is it the result of second thoughts within the department? Has some body, individual or authority asked for the easement? I understand what the effect of the amendment will be, but I should be intrigued to learn how at this very late stage of the Bill, it has been concluded that this particular provision is needed to improve it.

The amendments deal with the rental income of a landlord who has protected tenants. I assume that it is an attempt to secure protection for landlords which they would not otherwise have. There are two sides to the matter. On the one hand it is assumed that part of the cost of works will be passed on to tenants via increased rents. On the other hand, the higher the assessment the less the grant for which a landlord would qualify. Can the Minister say what formula will be employed to determine the increase which might resonably be expected? The Minister referred to advice from those in possession of intelligence in the rental field. Will there be any input by representatives of tenants or authorities, or is it a landlord-loaded amendment?

The Earl of Caithness

I was a little surprised by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, ended his remarks on the amendment. He asked whether the amendments were landlord loaded. The point of the amendments is to enable the landlord to improve the circumstances of the tenant. Unless the landlord is treated on a fair basis for grant as others are, he will not seek to obtain the grant and the tenant will remain in poor conditions. The noble Lord has argued all afternoon that such conditions should be improved. That is what we seek to do with these amendments. The Government, as a flexible and listening government, brought forward the amendments as a result of our consultations.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

As a result of the Minister's consultations with whom? That was the first question that I asked. The Minister did not answer it, which is surprising because he is a fair man. What prompted the improvement in the interests of the tenants? The Minister tells us that the raison d'être of the amendment is to improve the lot of the tenants. However, the lot of the landlord has to be improved first. Rather than saying that the amendments are the result of consultation, will the Minister tell me with whom the consultation took place?

The Earl of Caithness

I am afraid that I am not able to say who was consulted and who responded. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144CC: Page 98, line 47, at end insert— ("(2A) In considering the matters in paragraphs (b) and (bb) of subsection (2) above, the local housing authority may seek and act upon the advice of rent officers; and, for this purpose, in section 121 of the Housing Act 1988 (additional functions of rent officers) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words "and applications to which section 106 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 applies".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144DD: Page 99, line 1, after ("charity") insert ("or the application is in respect of glebe land").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 144DD, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 144EE, FF, HH, and JJ and Amendments Nos. 164B and 170C. This group of amendments concerns the treatment for grant purposes of properties owned by charities and the Church.

Clause 128 provides that, where an application is in respect of certain property owned by the Church or by charities, the requirements as to interest in the property and the provision of certificates of future occupation do not apply. That continues an existing exemption which reflects the fact that it is often impossible for those bodies to comply with those requirements since the person making the application will neither be living in the property nor letting it. That is the case, for example, where a charity makes accommodation available free of charge or where a parsonage is occupied as part of the terms on which a living is held.

As the Bill is currently drafted, the unintentional effect of the exemption is that no test of resources can be applied in those circumstances. That is because both Clauses 105 and 106 are drafted in terms of the type of certificate provided. Amendments Nos. 144DD to FF and HH, together with Amendment No. 144AA, which we have looked at in connection with common parts grants, therefore amend Clause 16 so that it applies to any application to which the provisions of Clause 128 apply.

Clause 106 is also applied in relation to applications for houses in multiple occupation grant. Special provision is made for additional matters to which an authority should have regard where the application is made by a charity or in respect of glebe land or a parsonage. These are set out in Clause 106(3) and the new subsection (5) proposed to be inserted by Amendment No. 144JJ. They enable authorities to have regard to the general circumstances and practices of the body concerned and the financial resources available to it.

Amendment No. 170C has the effect of extending Clause 128 to include all parsonages, not simply vacant ones. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the test of resources applied by Clause 106 operates whether an application is made by the incumbent or by some other representative of the Church on his behalf, thus enabling authorities to take account of wider financial resources which may reasonably be expected to be available for repairs to parsonages. Amendment No. 164B is a minor technical amendment consequential on Amendment No. 170C.

These amendments ensure that the provisions of Clause 106 apply in the way intended and correct a technical defect whereby subsection (3) of Clause 106 cannot operate. They provide for applications in respect to church properties to be means tested in a fair and consistent manner analogous to applications in respect of property owned by charities. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 144EE to 144JJ: Page 99, line 3, leave out ("charity") and insert ("applicant"). Page 99, line 6, leave out ("charity") and insert ("applicant"). Page 99, line 8, leave out ("charity") and insert ("applicant"). Page 99, line 8, at end insert— ("(4) In the case of an application for an HMO grant, in subsections (2) and (3) above, any reference to rent shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the consideration under licences or lettings of the house in question and any references to letting a dwelling shall be construed accordingly. (5) Where the application is for a grant in respect of the residence house of an ecclesiastical benefice, paragraphs (b) and (bb) of subsection (2) above shall not apply and the local housing authority shall also have regard—

1. (a) to any financial resources available to the applicant; and
2. (b) generally to the circumstances of the applicant.")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move these amendment en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 144GG: After Clause 106, insert the following new clause —

("Tenants' common parts applications

—(1) This section applies where an application for a grant is a tenants' common parts application.

(2) The local housing authority shall decide how much of the cost of the relevant works is attributable to the applicants (in this section referred to as "the attributable cost"); and, for the purposes of this section, the attributable cost is an amount equal to the proportion, referred to in subsection (3) below, of the cost of the relevant works.

(2) The proportion mentioned in subsection (2) above is as follows—

1. (a) where it can be ascertained, the proportion that the aggregate of each of the applicant's respective liabilities to carry out or contribute to the carrying out of the relevant works bears to the aggregate of all such liabilities on the part of all persons (including the applicants) so liable; or
2. (b) where the proportion mentioned in paragraph (a) above cannot be ascertained, the proportion that the number of applicants bears to the number of persons (including the applicants) liable to carry out or contribute to the carrying out of works to the building;

and in any case where the interest by virtue of which the liability referred to in paragraph (b) above arises is held jointly by two or more persons, those persons shall be regarded as a single person in deciding for the purposes of that paragraph the number of persons so liable.

(4) The local housing authority shall then apportion the attributable cost to each of the applicants—

1. (a) in a case where the attributable cost is calculated by reference to the proportion mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above, according to the proportion that his liabilities to carry out or contribute to the carrying out of the relevant works bears to the aggregate of the applicants' liabilities mentioned in that paragraph; or
2. (b) in a case where the attributable cost is calculated by reference to the proportion mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, equally;

and the amount of grant payable shall be the aggregate of the grants that would be payable to each of the applicants under section 105 above or, in the case of a participating landlord, section 106 above if each of the applicants was an individual applicant under section 105 above or, as the case may be, section 106 above in respect of his apportionment of the attributable cost under paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) above.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 107 [Duty to approve applications to render certain dwellings fit for human habitation]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 144KK: Page 99, line 30, after ("application") insert ("other than one to which section (Duty to approve applications arising out of certain statutory notices) or section l09(3A) below applies").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 147B not moved.]

Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 144LL: After Clause 107, insert the following new clause: —

("Duty to approve applications arising out of certain statutory notices

. —(1) Subject to section 107(3) above and subsection (3) below, a local housing authority shall approve an application falling within section 106(1) above (in this section referred to as a "landlord's application") if completion of the relevant works is necessary to comply with a notice or notices under one or more of the following provisions—

1. (a) section 189 of the Housing Act 1985 (repair notice requiring works to render premises fit for human habitation);
2. (b) section 190 of that Act (repair notice in respect of premises in state of disrepair but not unfit); and
3. (c) section 352 of that Act (notice requiring works to render premises fit for number of occupants).

(2) Subject to section 107(3) above and subsection (3) below, a local housing authority shall approve an application for a grant which is accompanied by an owner-occupation certificate (in this section referred to as an "owner-occupier's application") if completion of the relevant works is necessary to comply with a notice under section 190 of the Housing Act 1985.

(3) If, in the case of a landlord's application or an owner-occupier's application, the local housing authority consider that the relevant works include works ("the additional works") in addition to those necessary to comply with a notice under section 189, section 190 or section 352 of the Housing Act 1985, they shall treat the application—

1. (a) as an application to which this section applies in so far as it relates to works other than the additional works; and
2. (b) as an application to which section 109 below applies in so far as it relates to the additional works.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 108 [Approval of applications to provide certain facilities for the disabled]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 144MM to 144PP: Page 100, line 15 at end insert ("or building"). Page 100, line 17, at end insert— ("(1A) A local housing authority shall not approve an application for a disabled facilities grant in respect of works to the common parts of a building containing one or more flats unless they are satisfied that the applicant has a power or is under a duty to carry out the relevant works."). Page 100, line 22, after second ("dwelling") insert ("or, as the case may be, flat").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 148: Page 100, line 25, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room used or usable for sleeping;").

The noble Lord said: If noble Lords have a list of the groupings, they will see that Amendments Nos. 148 to 152 have been grouped together, but I have given notice to both my Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench that I wish to speak to them all individually because they are separate points.

Amendment No. 148 is designed to allow the building of a new bedroom, not just provision of access to an existing room that could be used as a bedroom. This is particularly important in a small house with only a kitchen, sitting-room and dinning-room downstairs. For instance, changing the sitting-room into a bedroom to make provision for a disabled person may well adversely affect the whole household. That should be avoided when it is possible to build on an extra bedroom and bathroom.

As the amendments were originally grouped together, I shall speak briefly to each one in the interests of keeping everything moving. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

I shall speak to the group of amendments because I have only a general point to make and I know that detailed points will be made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, as he comes to each amendment.

The amendments are intended to make disabled facilities grants more effective—that is the key word—in helping disabled people by removing unnecessary restrictions and increasing the scope of adaptations. They are intended to make them of more value to the disabled person. All the improvements listed in the separate amendments are sensible and necessary. The disabled facilities grant should be aimed accurately and effectively at the needs and lifestyle of people with disabilities. All the amendments are intended to achieve that aim.

The only question that I wish to ask the Minister—I know that each point will be dealt with in detail by the other speakers—is one that was put on a previous amendment regarding consultation with disability organisations. Perhaps I could put that in a different way. I should be interested to know how much of the consultation that must have gone on when drafting the clause took place with organisations of disabled people rather than organisations for disabled people. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the importance of the distinction.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

If the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, my husband, were here tonight, he would tell the Committee far better than I can that it is absolutely essential, if one is married to a paraplegic, that there are two bathrooms in the house. He has already said so in the Chamber several years ago, but I should like to say that it could be the make or break of a marriage.

There are many young disabled people who break their backs and their necks on roads and building sites and in many different ways. To be able to have that facility quickly enables them to get back home, to get back to work and to save money. If they have to stay in hospital for months and months, without a house being adapted and without the money to do so, it is extra expense. I know that we have a Prime Minister who says that there should be good housekeeping. I believe that this amendment is good housekeeping, so I am happy to support it.

The Earl of Caithness

Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Swinfen in a general way and then deal with each amendment individually. Amendments Nos. 148 to 152 seek to extend the purposes for which mandatory disabled facilities grant would be available. Before we consider the merits of each individual amendment, it might be helpful if I explain briefly the reasoning behind the choice of the purposes presently listed in Clause 108. I hope that this will answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

Clause 107 makes renovation grant available for any works necessary to bring a property up to the revised fitness standard set out in paragraph 65 of Schedule 8. Disabled people and those who have disabled people living with them will be able to apply for renovation grants provided that they satisfy the requirements in Part VIII for doing so. Clause 108 recognises, however, that it is pointless to provide the basic facilities if a disabled occupant has no access to them and that mandatory grant must also be available to enable disabled people to benefit from the same basic standards and facilities as able-bodied people who seek to make their homes fit. Clause 108 therefore provides for access to such things as a kitchen, bathroom, WC and heating and lighting. In other words, we have tried to make Clause 108 reflect the fitness standard with particular reference to the needs of disabled people and thus put them on a par with able-bodied people when it comes to entitlement to mandatory grant.

Public sector resources are not infinite and we must utilise them in the best way possible. It is therefore a question of choosing the priorities and essentials which will best assist disabled people. I have listened to this Chamber argue on more than one occasion that those who are disabled do not want privileges that are unavailable to the able bodied. They want equality. That is what Clause 108 seeks to provide in grant terms.

Let me turn now to the amendments. Amendment No. 148 is designed to ensure that rooms which would otherwise be used by the whole family do not have to be put aside as bedrooms if to do so would adversely affect the life-style of the family. I sympathise with this, but Clause 108(2)(c) does not rule out mandatory grant for access to an upstairs bedroom or for enlarging an existing ground floor room if this is the most appropriate way of proceeding. The clause also presupposes that a principal family room, such as a lounge, will coexist with a disabled person's sleeping area since there is provision for mandatory grant for access to such a room. I hope that this answers the concerns raised by my noble kinswoman and others.

Lord Swinfen

I should like to read what my noble friend has said. I do not think that he has answered the whole point. The clause does not put a disabled person on a par with able-bodied people. More particularly, it does not put a family with a disabled member on a par with a family with no disabled members. It is the whole family that is affected, not just the disabled person.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out one essential need, which possibly could stop a marriage break-up. However, if a large room downstairs has to be used by a disabled member of the family and it means a very cramped, small sitting room on the ground floor for the rest of the family, particularly when that family includes children, it does not help proper family life. Nor does it help family life if there is a need to have the sitting room on the first floor, to which the disabled person may not have access.

When considering this matter my noble friend must look at the family as a whole and not just at the individual. If disabled people lived entirely on their own they would not survive. The whole family needs to be looked after. When an individual becomes disabled, to a large extent the family as a whole becomes disabled. That needs to be remembered. I shall not divide the Committee on this matter tonight but I reserve the right to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 149: Page 100, Line 33, leave out paragraph (f) and insert— ("(f) providing or enhancing heating and lighting systems and providing or adapting the controls thereof to make them suitable for the disabled occupant;").

The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment seeks to improve the wording of the Bill. It is not sufficient merely to facilitate the use of existing heating and lighting systems. Both may need to be enhanced or changed in order to make them suitable for disabled occupants. For example, the need for adequate heating for disabled people with impaired mobility is accepted by all. If, however, the existing heating is provided by electric radiators and kerosene heaters, a gas-fired cental heating system may need to be installed to provide adequate heating. It is a matter not just of heating but adequate heating.

A kerosene heater could be dangerous to a disabled person. Perhaps my noble friend has not tried sitting in a wheelchair and lifting heavy weights, particularly dangerous heavy weights that may be alight. A disabled person could quickly end up with no house. In other cases the enhancement of existing heating may be sufficient for some people, but not all. Similarly, greater intensity of light and more direct lighting is required for many partially sighted people and for people with all kinds of disabilities. They need switches to be in a position where they can reach them from a wheelchair. It is hopeless trying to turn on a light when one cannot reach it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

Before I deal specifically with the amendment perhaps I may just reassure my noble friend, although I am sure he knows it already, that I shall read with great care what he has said and be happy between now and a later stage to discuss his concerns or matters about which he thinks that the Government are not taking on board the points that he makes.

Amendment No. 149 seeks to expand subsection (2)(f) to include provision for heating and lighting. However, I say to my noble friend that both heating and lighting are elements of the fitness standard and mandatory grant will be available to both the disabled and the able bodied if their homes are defective in these respects and works are necessary to enable them to meet that standard. In particular, the purpose of subsection (2)(f) is to ensure that a disabled person can reach and use power points, switches and heating controls.

I am only too conscious of the fact that if one is in a wheelchair one may not be able to reach a switch in its normal position. As I understand it—I have checked this point and will do so again—the Bill as drafted takes account of that situation.

Lord Swinfen

I thank my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 150: Page 100, line 38, leave out from ("dwelling") to end of line 39.

The noble Lord said: In my view, this amendment is too restrictive. It seeks to facilitate access to movement around the dwelling by the disabled occupant in order to enable the disabled person to care for a dependent relative. Surely the disabled occupant needs access and movement for himself. It is far more difficult for someone in a wheelchair to move around when there are cramped conditions than it is for an able-bodied person. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

I believe that Clause 108 already effectively provides mandatory grant in respect of this concern of my noble friend since it provides for access to all the principal areas and centres of home life. Subsection (2)(g) is designed to provide mandatory grant for any special adaptions needed by disabled persons to enable them to care for children and any other dependent relatives. I suggest that the exclusion of the words, in order to enable him to care for a dependent relative weakens rather than strengthens the subsection since without them there is no recognition that a disabled person may have a responsibility for the care of a dependant.

Lord Swinfen

I shall read what my noble friend has said and study his words with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 151: Page 100, line 39, at end insert— ("(h) providing adequate thermal insulation, including double-glazing and draughtproofing; and").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to ensure that adequate thermal insulation is provided. Sometimes it will be cheaper to insulate a house properly than it will be to provide heating and it may be very much more effective. In my view, this point has been missed in the Bill.

Throughout the world as a whole people are being encouraged to conserve energy. This is not just a concern of the disabled. I think that this provision should be inserted as well. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

Discretionary grant is already available under Clause 109 for the provision of adequate thermal insulation. Assistance is also available under Clause 123. Additionally, if a disabled person requires any form of insulation to secure his welfare, grant may be given under Clause 108(3).

I return to what I said at the beginning. I now put on my Treasury hat. It is a question of choosing priorities and ensuring even-handed treatment between the able bodied and the disabled. It was for that reason that we wrote the Bill in that way. I believe it is right that the disabled facilties grant for insulation should be discretionary. However, again I shall read what my noble friend said.

Lord Dormand of Easington

How does the disabled person know that the help to which the Minister has referred is available?

The Earl of Caithness

Once the Bill is enacted I am sure that we shall be making it widely available not only to local authorities but to others who are concerned with the disabled and those with interests in the disabled. We shall try to make the information as widely available as possible.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Will there be a mandatory duty laid on those who are the main source of dissemination of information to the disabled? If it is a discretionary power, some people are lethargic, others are keen, and there will be a disparate knowledge and take-up of the facility. Can the Minister tell us what steps he has in mind to make sure that every disabled person has these easements drawn to his attention?

The Earl of Caithness

I should like to consider the full implications of what the noble Lord has said. Obviously we try to make the information as widely available as possible. I know that on some occasions the noble Lord and his party have accused us of being over enthusiastic on this. However, I shall bear in mind what he says.

Lord Swinfen

I have noted what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 152: Page 100, line 39, at end insert— ("(i) facilitating access to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a garage or covered carport where the disabled occupant is dependent on a road or pavement vehicle for mobility outdoors.").

The noble Lord said: Access to a garage is obviously important to anyone unable or virtually unable to walk, as evidenced by the fact that it has been the subject of rate rebates. The provision of cover for a car and, or possibly instead of, an outdoor wheelchair is also essential. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Before my noble kinsman rises, I have heard that there is a new regulation—I am not sure whether it comes from the EC—about the plugging in of electric wheelchairs. I think that he ought to check it because this amendment may be essential.

The Earl of Caithness

I do not underestimate the value of transport to the disabled or the very real importance of a car if someone is not to be housebound. Clause 108(3) would permit an authority to give grant for the purpose set out in Amendment No. 152 where it considered that the works were for the purpose of making a dwelling suitable for the accommodation, welfare or employment of a disabled person living there. I believe it is right that this should be discretionary. We must not overlook the fact that no form of grant, mandatory or discretionary, for building a garage is available to those who are not disabled or who do not have a disabled person living with them. This applies whatever the family circumstances and regardless of whether those who are elderly or infirm but not disabled are involved.

I should also like to consider the point raised by my noble kinswoman.

Lord Swinfen

I doubt whether all local authorities would read Clause 108(3) in the way in which my noble friend has suggested. However, I should like to study his words carefully and possibly come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Reay

I think it might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.45 p.m.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.45 to 8.45 p.m.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 144QQ: Page 100, line 43, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 152A not moved.]

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 152B: Page 101, line 11, at end insert— ("(7) For the purposes of this section, a local housing authority may approve an application for a disabled facilities grant from a secure tenant of the authority, notwithstanding any other provision of this Part.").

The noble Lord said: I realise that at this time of night we need to get on. The amendment was not debated in the Commons, and it raises separate issues on the general principles of whether councils should receive grant by addressing the problems faced by disabled people which, as the former Minister, Mr. Trippier, recognised, was common to all tenures.

I wish to put one question to the Minister. Can he comment on his department's intentions with respect to disabled people in council properties? The amendment proposes that a secure council tenant can apply for a disabled facilities grant. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful for the opportunity given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, to explain the Government's position. Let me reconfirm that in connection with Amendment No. 139 the availability of grant to secure tenancies is restricted by the provisions of Clause 101(5)(a). That prevents an authority from entering a grant application from a tenant if that tenant is not required by the terms of his tenancy to carry out the works for which grant aid is sought. Secure tenants are unlikely to have that kind of repairing obligation. The restriction does not, however, apply in the case of disabled facilities grant.

Therefore, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which prevents a local authority tenant from applying for a grant towards the cost of adaptations or an authority from approving the application, provided that the other requirements in respect of disabled facilities grants are met. It follows that the Bill already achieves the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am grateful to the Minister. Naturally I shall read what he has said, but I accept his assurance that the Bill as presently drafted will allow this exercise to take place. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109 [Discretionary approval of certain applications]:

The Earl of Caithness

moved Amendments Nos. 152C to 152J: Page 101, line 13, after ("grant") insert ("other than a common parts grant"). Page 101, line 18, at end insert— ("(1A) Subject to the preceding provisions of this Part, a local housing authority may approve an application for a common parts grant if the authority are satisfied that the relevant works—

1. (a) are necessary for one or more of the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) and (c) to (g) of subsection (2) below; or
2. (b) will cause the building to meet the requirements mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 604(2) of the Housing Act 1985.").

Page 101, line 20, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 101, line 26, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 101, line 32, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 101, line 32, at end insert—. ("(2A) In the case of an application for an HMO grant, any reference in subsections (1) and (2) above to the dwelling shall be construed as a reference to the house."). Page 101, line 34, after ("(1)") insert ("or subsection (1A)")

The noble Earl said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 153: Page 101, line 35, leave out ("the expected life of the building") and insert ("extending the life of the building by thirty years.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to write into the Bill the words "by thirty years". Section 468(2)(d) of the Housing Act 1985 requires a local authority to be sure that proposed works are likely to provide satisfactory housing accommodation for a period of 30 years, but there is no mention in the Bill of a similar provision. The local authority is merely required to have regard to, the expected life of the building". The Government believe that this has been too inflexible and has precluded some worthwhile shorter term improvements. Nevertheless, Mr. Trippier, speaking in another place, said that it would clearly be a waste of money to give a grant towards work on a property that would have less than the 30-year life currently required. We do not understand why the Government do not take this on board. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

As the noble Lord has pointed out, it is a requirement of the existing grant legislation that an improvement grant cannot normally be approved unless the property concerned is likely to provide satisfactory housing accommodation for a period of 30 years. This requirement was first imposed in the Housing Act 1949 when its stated purpose was to ensure that grant aid was directed towards worthwhile improvements such as the provision of a bath. In 1949 this may have been a very necessary requirement but I doubt whether it serves quite the same purpose now, particularly with the introduction of the revised fitness standard. Indeed its effect has been to restrict grant availability for a number of sensible improvements.

I do not suggest that renovation grant should be given for works designed to patch and mend properties more suitable for clearance. Assistance under Clause 123 is available for that. Nor do I believe it reasonable for a dwelling provided by conversion to have a short life expectancy—just as I would not expect the assistance provided for in Clauses 119 to 122 in respect of group repair to be given for short-term repairs. However, there will be circumstances when, for example, the provision of heating or insulation will be reasonable even if the property will not last for 30 years. I believe that local authorities should have discretion to decide for themselves, in the light of their local knowledge and long-term strategy for an area, what is a reasonable life expectancy rather than being subject to what has always been an arbitrary limitation. For this reason we resist the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Ross of Newport

I do not intend to divide the Committee but it would seem to me, and I think to many others, more appropriate to have the specified period of time which would surely be more in keeping with the Government's attempt to target public resources and ensure the best use of them. The noble Earl would, I think, say "Amen" to that.

I shall study what the Minister has said in reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 153A to 153E Page 101, line 37, at end insert— ("(3A) Subject to the preceding provisions of this Part, a local housing authority may approve an application falling within section 106(1) above (in this section referred to as a "landlord's application") if—

1. (a) the relevant works are for the purpose of rendering the dwelling or house to which the application relates fit for human habitation, or
2. (b) in the case of an application for an HMO grant, the relevant works are for the purpose of enabling the house in question to meet one or more of the requirements in subsection (1A) of section 352 of the Housing Act 1985,

and (in either case) the authority are satisfied that the relevant works are necessary for the purpose concerned."). Page 101, line 39, after ("achieve") insert ("the result referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above or"). Page 101, line 40, after ("above") insert ("or, as the case may be, the purpose falling within subsection (3A) above"). Page 101, line 45, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building"). Page 102, line 1, after ("dwelling") insert ("or building").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 154: Page 102, line 4, after ("paragraphs") insert ("(c), (d),").

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Ezra who, unavoidably, has an engagement elsewhere, I move Amendment No. 154 and speak also to Amendment No. 155. I hope that noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench will speak to Amendment No. 178ZA. In these amendments we are dealing with energy saving. The effect would be to compel the Secretary of State to lay down minimum standards for energy efficiency measures and effectively define what is meant by "adequate" in terms of the discretionary standard. Without such guidance the terms will effectively be meaningless.

Unfortunately, there is still a tendency in this country to see energy efficiency measures as a luxury or as an optional extra, particularly when deciding on priorities for spending scarce financial resources. Without firm guidance there is a danger that local authorities will interpret the terms "adequate thermal insulation" and "adequate facilities for space heating" to a low level which would not provide what would be generally accepted as adequate standards.

The framework for providing such guidance is in existence. The building regulations provide such standards for newly built properties and those which are substantially rebuilt. In addition, the Building Research Establishment has recently published a designer's manual for energy efficient refurbishment of housing. There is now a British standard for energy efficiency in housing—BS8211. These three sources, together with the relevant British standards for materials, could form the basis of comprehensive guidance to local authorities on energy efficient standards to be adopted.

I have recently moved from the Isle of Wight to the borders of Shropshire where I am having alterations carried out to my property. I have gone in for solar energy—at some considerable cost. It must make a great deal of sense, certainly in the summer that we have just had. I suggest that the Government should consider that as an area to encourage with some kind of grant structure. Moving in that direction and saving rare fossil fuels, gas and so on must make a great deal of sense. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 would oblige the Secretary of State to specify the requirements as to what would constitute "adequate thermal insulation" and "adequate facilities for space heating" for the purposes of discretionary grants. Amendment No. 178ZA would go further and extend the requirement that a dwelling should have adequate provision for lighting, heating and ventilation to be considered fit for human habitation to include adequate measures for conservation of heat.

On the face of it, the amendments to the fitness standard might seem a minor and even desirable addition which would acknowledge the importance that should be attached to additional conservation measures in a dwelling. Of course these are important. We do not doubt the contribution that such measures would make both to the well-being of the occupant and to the wider global environment. But we cannot accept that the best way to achieve this is through an amendment to the basic fitness standard. That standard is the standard that determines whether a local authority has a duty to take action against a particular property, if necessary against the wishes of the occupant. So, for example, if a dwelling had in the view of the local authority less than adequate conservation measures, however defined, it could compel the owner to carry out the necessary works. There would be no guarantee either that the owner would be entitled to grant towards the costs of doing so, since grants are payable only in so far as the applicant has insufficient resources to pay for the work.

The inclusion of an energy conservation measure among the factors in the basic fitness standard would therefore have two very substantial effects: in the first place it would increase the number of properties unfit for human habitation very considerably. It would, for example, increase the number of unfit owner-occupied properties threefold. I question just what would be achieved by that, in the almost certain knowledge that grant would not be available for the majority of such cases. Secondly, following on from that, it would place local authorities in the quite ludicrous position of having to serve compulsory notices on owner occupiers and others who were perfectly content with the insulation or conservation measures that they had. The only result would be to discredit local authorities' role in securing minimum housing standards.

The standard of fitness is a basic standard precisely because it carries with it a duty on an authority to intervene and insist on remedial action. That is why it is misconceived to confuse what is absolutely essential to enable a person to continue living in a house with what is simply desirable.

We accept entirely that cost-effective insulation and heating measures can be very important to individual households, especially the elderly, and to the environment generally. That is why under the provisions in the Bill local authorities will continue to be able to assist, often as part of wider repairs or improvements, works that will pro vide adequate thermal insulation and adequate facilities for space heating. These works will, I am sure, make up an important part of renovation grant activity under the new system. It is not clear why there should be a wish for the Secretary of State to intervene in the detailed manner implied in Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 solely in relation to these two matters, and in decisions which are properly for the local authority. Of course, we shall issue advice and guidance on the purposes for which discretionary grant might be made available, and indeed refer to the relevant British Standards where these are appropriate. But we should not wish to lay down detailed requirements which may bear little relationship to the needs of particular households or the priorities determined by an authority. That way we should simply return to the worst features of the Homes Insulation Scheme, which the Bill puts to rest. For example, the department has had to deal with individual cases where an insulation grant was refused simply because the material used was not one of those listed under the scheme at the time—even though the product was subsequently listed. We do not wish to return to that sort of detailed oversight.

Of course, the HIS achieved a great deal in its time. Ninety per cent. of all homes have now some form of roof insulation. But it has never been the only source of help available for this type of work. Insulation work is commonly featured as part of general improvement grant work and in block repair schemes, for example. We are not convinced of the value of continuing an entirely separate scheme, with all that that involves in terms of administrative resources and product specification.

It is our intention to consult the local authority associations in the normal way on the content of the guidance which we intend to give to authorities on the purposes for which grant might be given. If authorities would find it helpful to have technical advice on thermal insulation or heating matters, then of course we shall direct them to the right sources. However, we believe it would be wrong to suggest that the Secretary of State is willing to go down the route of specifying products and technical standards in the manner which has bedevilled the Homes Insulation Scheme.

As regards local authority properties, we shall continue to encourage authorities as landlords to include improved conservation and energy efficiency measures in their improvement programmes. Very large sums indeed—for example, £25 million—are already spent under the estate action programme on such measures, and I have no doubt that this will continue as a feature of local authorities' own stock renovation programme.

We resist these amendments. Good intentions are all very well, but it would be quite misconceived to build compulsion into an area where home owners as consumers should be generally free to make their own choices about the level of heating and so on which they desire, with financial support available to those who are unable to afford the necessary costs.

That is what the Bill provides and that is the way forward. We shall continue to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency and conservation measures through the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office and through our contribution to the wider debate on the global environment. That is why we resist the amendments.

9 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I should have risen earlier to speak to Amendment No. 155 but the principle was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when he moved Amendment No. 154.

The Minister's civil servants have gone to a great deal of trouble to give him an extensive brief but I do not really believe—and I should like to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ross—that it deals with the objectives at which the amendments are aimed.

The main line of the amendments is to give an indication of a widening ambit of availability of funds and permissions for energy conservation. I believe that earlier the noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the fact that only a short time ago the Government took a decision to reduce the categories of people who could apply for home insulation grant. It is no good the Government coming back to this Chamber and to the general public and saying that it was restricted to certain age groups because they were the people who really needed the help to finance it. The main objective which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is trying to achieve—and which I, on behalf of my party, support—is a wider application of energy saving measures and not on a selective basis. Obviously an energy saving measure is in the interests of the person using the energy. In addition, if one goes outside nuclear energy, energy resources are by any standards finite. Surely these measures must be a substantial investment for the future. It is acknowledged that much of the energy which we produce is simply thrown to the winds because of lack of investment in these energy saving measures.

I should like to raise a further point with the Minister. Is there any validity in pressing the point regarding cavity wall insulation? What are its merits? I know that there may be arguments for and against it in an architectural sense and indeed arguments as to whether it is good. However, I believe that substantial savings can be achieved through cavity wall insulation of various types, which of course brings more comfort for people.

If the Government wish people to take seriously their claims to be interested in energy conservation and the savings of money on that basis, then they will have to do better, because all the measures which have passed through this Chamber in the past two years have been to restrict the categories of people who may apply for a grant. I do not understand how that diminution indicates a successful campaign for the Government in this regard. It turns the argument on its head. In view of the details given by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the statistical information from expert sources involved in energy conservation measures—combined heat and power, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and double glazing—I believe that the Government are trying to shift a large mountain of snow with a very small shovel. Perhaps the Minister may like to think again about whether the Government will extend the categories of property and people who can apply for grant and whether they will also take a general approach which will make more resources available for energy saving on a grander scale than at present.

Earl Russell

I wonder whether the Minister was perhaps rather hasty in his rejection of Amendment No. 154. He made a number of technical points. So far as they go, some of them are valid. However they have a slightly limited perspective. For example, the Minister said that it might change the standards of fitness for human habitation. Those standards may perhaps be written about tablets of stone but they are hardly written on them. They have changed considerably over the years.

The Minister also made the point that people might be under an obligation to conduct improvements without being eligible for a grant. That of course is within the Government's power to change.

I see the Minister instantly thinking "money". Fair enough; but money can be saved as well as spent. The proverb, "a stitch in time saves nine", is one that has particular validity in the case of energy conservation. I look on this subject as one who arrived in the United States in 1979 when President Carter's energy conservation measures were just coming into force. I was briefed on them by my accountant, who said,"Take advantage of these. It will be worth your while". He was quite right. It was also worth while for the United States. If my memory is correct, it produced an 8 per cent. drop in American energy consumption in a period of about two years. Almost immediately afterwards oil prices began to fall and world inflation began to fall; the two events being much more closely connected than recent mythology suggests.

I thought that the Government's fight against inflation was one of their overriding priorities. Is that still true? If so, they might look on this amendment with rather more favour.

Lord Hesketh

Perhaps I may give a short answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I think that the Government have determinedly shown in recent days that inflation still is a major target, though it may be on a different route than through the energy algebra which the noble Earl so deftly displayed to the Committee.

I feel that I am not qualified enough to be able to balance the position of those encouragements provided by President Carter to the residents of the United States to that of the price of crude followed by the rate of inflation. However, I can answer one direct question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, regarding cavity wall insulation. Nothing on the face of the Bill will exclude grant, and, furthermore, we are considering with the Energy Efficiency Office what priority to give for cavity wall insulation.

Lord Ross of Newport

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and my noble friend Lord Russell for their contributions. They have both shown that certainly this side of the Committee, and, I am sure, some Members on the other side, believe that while the Government pay lip service to energy saving they do not actually do anything seriously about it. Certainly they do not do enough.

I feel that the next generation will not believe that this generation has done enough in its lifetime to save energy. We are squandering far too much and should be doing far more to save energy. I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the Minister said because I remember the problem concerning home insulation grants and the arguments over materials. Having taken up cases on behalf of constituents in the old days, I remember that it was a matter that raised complications.

We have had a short debate and it is a pity that there are not more Members in the Chamber because it is a subject to which the Government have not paid anything like enough attention. We can only press on the Minister that if he has any influence at all there is a whole area where the Government can do so much more. My noble friend Lord Russell made an extremely interesting contribution regarding oil prices in the United States. That is the sort of experience I was not aware of but it should certainly be studied by others.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]

Clause 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 [Approval and refusal of applications]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 156 to 159: Page 102, line 19, leave out from ("works") to ("and") in line 20 and insert— ("(bb) the amount of the costs which in their opinion have been or are to be properly incurred with respect to preliminary or ancillary services and charges;") Page 102, line 22, leave out ("paragraph (b)") and insert ("paragraphs (b) and (bb)") Page 102, line 26, leave out ("estimated expense") and insert ("total of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (b) and (bb) above (in this Part referred to as "the estimated expense").") Page 102, line 39, leave out ("estimated expense") and insert ("amount of expenses referred to in subsection (2)(b) above")

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 159A: Page 103, line 5, at end insert— ("(5A) In exercising his powers under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State shall have as a primary objective the maintenance and improvement of the nation's housing stock through the grant system by encouraging applications for grants to be made so that relevant works may be carried out at an early stage.")

The noble Lord said: I shall be extremely brief. It is my belief that this Bill would be improved if the words in the amendment were included in the clause. We would then at least have some definite statement within the Bill of the Government's primary objectives. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

I can understand the noble Lord's fears that any limits set on individual grants will act as a disincentive. I must say at the outset that we have at present no proposals to set any limit. I must also say that I do not accept that the provisions of Part VIII do nothing to encourage people to undertake works at an early stage rather than postpone them. The whole purpose of Clause 109(2)(a) is to make discretionary grant available for the kind of repairs that I am sure the noble Lord has in mind. Where people genuinely cannot afford to carry out such works, the new grant system will be of greater benefit than the existing one since grant of up to the full cost of the works will be available instead of grant at a percentage of a fixed rate as at present.

We must also bear in mind a point that I have stressed before that grant aid forms a very small proportion of the overall spending on repairs and improvements. While some of that spending is directed towards cosmetic improvements, inevitably a proportion is spent on maintaining the fabric of properties. This suggests that people have the money and are willing to spend it.

I have said that we have no proposals to use the power provided by Clause 110(5). The Committee may therefore question the need for the provision. We have in mind that there may be circumstances—I would use grants for conversions as an example—where future experience indicates that a limit should be set to secure a proper balance of grant aid. The power to prescribe by order includes a power to make provision with respect to different cases or description of cases and therefore does not have to be used to give a blanket limit with respect to all grants or indeed all purposes for which a grant may be given.

Of course, there is nothing in the provision as it is currently drafted to prevent the Secretary of State from prescribing upper grant limits in such a way as to favour grants for works to prevent disrepair. Amendment No. 159A would, however, largely confine it to such a use. At the same time, it does not of itself achieve a targeting of grant in this manner since there is no requirement to use the power in the first place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Ross of Newport

I am certainly not going to divide the Committee on the issue. I point out to the Minister that we state in the amendment that it was the Government's primary objective to deal with the maintenance and improvement of the nation's housing stock. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 111 [Payments of grants]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 160: Page 103, line 17, after ("works") insert ("and any preliminry or ancillary services and charges").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 161: Page 103, line 19, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran makes his apologies to the Committee for his absence. He has had a bereavement in the family and has had to leave.

This is another amendment that seeks to tighten up the regulations concerning builders' accounts. The subsection appears to weaken the requirement of the local authorities to ensure that a proper invoice demand or receipt is acceptable. It is not enough simply to state that it should not be given by the applicant or a member of his family. That would seem to us to leave wide open the opportunity for abuse through obtaining bogus invoices or receipts. One has to say that such incidents have been known to happen.

I make it quite clear that this is a probing amendment. The subsection does not add to what is already a very poor piece of legislation but important in ensuring that home improvement grants are properly applied. It has already been argued as regards Clause 99 that receipts should in most cases relate to the estimates submitted with the grant application and be from the same contractor. Simply to exclude the applicant or a member of his family from submitting a receipt does not address the real problems of accountability. The view of the National Home Improvement Council is that this clause is related and states the justification for Clause 99. It seems to us that the Government are missing a major opportunity to encourage better standards of workmanship and the proper application of public resources for the improvement of housing stock. They do not address themselves to these two clauses in such a way that at least eliminates abuse by cowboy builders and protects grant applications. I beg to move.

Lord Dean of Beswick

Though neither my name nor that of any of my noble friends on our Front Bench appears next to this amendment, I rise to support it. If there are any measures that we can take to eliminate or affect the operation of cowboy builders within the industry then we should take them. The activities of cowboy builders have not diminished over the years. A substantial volume of building work is now undertaken by such builders in this country, mostly at the bottom end of the trade. I know that throughout the building industry, the Building Employers' Confederation and other national organisations besides the trade unions involved, there is deep concern at this particular activity and the fact that the Government do not appear to be taking the matter seriously enough.

A few years ago I was a member of a local authority. There was quite widespread availability of improvement grants through the local authority for the improvement of the older stock of housing. The activities of the cowboys at that time were beyond belief. People towards the bottom end of the social scale were borrowing money or using most of their financial resources in order to get their houses improved, but they ended up with a complete abortion of an improvement because the work had not been done by bona fide registered builders who would have given value for money. On that basis I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross.

Lord Reay

Amendment No. 161 has the effect of deleting subsection (4) of Clause 111 which amplifies the type of bill or receipt which an applicant must submit before grant can be paid. In particular, it deletes the restriction on the provision of bills or receipts made out by the applicant or a family member.

Subsection (4) is not intended to be an exhaustive definition of what constitutes an acceptable bill or receipt. Its main purpose therefore is to make it plain that grant cannot be paid where the only bill is one prepared by the applicant or a family member. Where the applicant or his family undertake work, grant will be payable in respect of the materials used, provided receipts are submitted, but not in respect of any labour.

It has been suggested that bills for the purpose of this clause should normally be acceptable only if they are submitted by the contractor who provided the original estimate and that this would help to ensure good workmanship. Normally this will be the case but, as we have discussed in relation to Amendment No. 140, there are several circumstances where a change of builder will be reasonable and even essential. The purpose of requiring the receipt is not to safeguard the quality of the work. Such a safeguard is provided in Clause 111(3)(a). It is mainly to ensure that the works have not been carried out for a sum less than that on which the grant offer was calculated.

As I have already pointed out, authorities are obliged to decide for themselves the amount which it is reasonable to spend on the works for which aid is sought before approving grant. This may not be the same as the amount quoted in the original estimate, although in many cases it will be. If the works are actually carried out for less than the amount determined by the authority, grant may be reduced. The requirement to provide a bill or receipt is therefore primarily a financial safeguard designed to complement the quality safeguards of Clause 111(3)(a) and Clause 112. We resist the amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am sorry that the Minister's answer appears, at least in my opinion, to have completely the opposite effect to what the Government hope to achieve. He said that the Bill as it stands (without the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, being accepted) is designed to prevent fraud; that is, people making fraudulent claims. Our intention, and I think that of the Bill, is to ensure that value for money is also given. In my view that should be encapsulated in the legislation. Moreover, the public part of the money which has been invested in the improvement should also be value for money. It seems that the Minister is indicating at this point of time that it is simply a question of preventing fraud in these dealings. I should have thought that the Government would have cast their view much wider to ensure that value for money was received and that fraud was prevented in respect of the job for which a quote was given.

The Earl of Balfour

I should like to ask but one question at this point. I shall again quote from a case in which I have been involved personally. I am sorry that I must bring myself into the matter yet again but it is the only way I can illustrate the point easily.

Occasionally work has been carried out on property which may not even be owned by me but with which I have been involved. For example, as I mentioned earlier on, I have been involved in replacing water pipes. On that occasion I acted as agent. I did not charge any fee for that service. I always made certain that the local authority had all the proper receipts and everything else that I could think of. I kept the local master of works fully informed of what was being done and how it was being done. The clause states: satisfies the authority and is not given by the applicant or any member of his family". I hope that that would not exclude me from carrying out that type of work. I can imagine that a number of Members of the Committee with estates could be personally involved if they are factoring their own estate—what is the English word for it?—or are acting as their own estate agent. I wondered about that point.

Lord Ross of Newport

I am not sure that the noble Earl will receive an answer to that point. I said that the amendment was a probing one. The Minister should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, because he has had substantial local government experience. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has also had some experience of taking up improvement grants on his estate. There is no question but that there has been fraud. The amendment is saying to the Government that they should tighten up a bit more. We are trying to look after the nation's coffers.

We have had a response to the probing amendment, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it. I give notice that I may raise the matter again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport)

I apologise if I called the wrong amendment.

I am sorry if I misled the Minister and the Committee.

Clause 111, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 112 [Conditions as to completion of works]:

[Amendments Nos. 161A and 161B not moved.]

Clause 112 agreed to.

Clause 113 [Condition as to availability for letting]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 161C: Page 104, line 34, after ("a") insert ("local").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 114 and 115 agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments No. 161E and 161D: After Clause 115, insert the following new clause:

("Conditions relating to HMO grant.

.—(1) This section applies where an application for an HMO grant has been approved by a local housing authority; and in the following provisions of this section "the house" means the house to which the eligible works relate.

(2) It is a condition of the grant that, throughout the intitial period, the house will be residentially occupied or available for residential occupation, under tenancies or licences, by persons who are not connected with the owner for the time being of the house.

(3) The references in subsection (2) above to residential occupation do not include occupation for a holiday; and subsection (3) of section 113 above applies far the purposes of subsection (2) above, substituting a reference to a house for any reference to a dwelling.

(4) It is also a condition of the grant—

1. (a) that if, at any time within the initial period, the local housing authority by whom the grant was paid serve notice on the owner of the house requiring him to do so, he will, within the period of twenty-one days beginning on the date on which the notice was served, furnish to the authority a statement showing how the condition in subsection (2) above is being fulfilled; and
2. (b) that, if required to do so by the owner of the house, any tenant or licensee in residential occupation of the house will furnish the owner with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice served under paragraph (a) above.

(5) In any case where—

1. (a) there is, with respect to the house, a breach of a condition under subsection (2) or subsection (4) above, or
2. (b) at any time within the initial period the local housing authority have given a direction under section 354 of the Housing Act 1985 (power to limit number of occupants of house) with respect to the house and that direction has not been revoked or varied under section 357 of that Act, the authority may demand that the owner for the time being of the house pay a sum equal to the amount of the grant, together with compound interest on that sum as from the certified date, calculated at such reasonable rate as the authority may determine and with yearly rests: but the authority may determine not to make such a demand or may demand a lesser amount.

(6) It is also a condition of the grant that, if an owner makes a relevant disposal of the house (other than an exempt disposal) within the initial period, he shall pay to the local housing authority on demand the amount of the grant.

(7) A condition under any of subsections (2), (4) and (6) above (in the following provisions of this section referred to as "an HMO condition") is a local land charge and, subject to subsection (9) and section 117 below, shall remain in force with respect to the house for a period of five years from the certified date.

(8) So long as an HMO condition remains in force with respect to a house it is binding on any person, other than a local housing authority or registered housing association, who is for the time being an owner of the house.

(9) On satisfaction of the liability arising from a demand under subsection (5) or subsection (6) above, any HMO condition shall cease to be in force with respect to the house.

(10) The expressions "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" have the meanings assigned by section 116 below."

After Clause 115, insert the following new Clause—

"Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application

(.—(1) This section applies where a landlord's common parts application has been approved by a local housing authority.

(2) It is a condition of the grant that where the applicant makes a relevant disposal (other than an exempt disposal) of the building within the initial period, he shall pay to the local housing authority on demand the amount of the grant.

(3) A condition under subsection (2) above is a local land charge and shall, subject to subsection (5) and section 117 below, remain in force with respect to the building for a period of five years from the certified date.

(4) So long as a condition under subsection (2) above remains in force with respect to a building it is binding on any person who is for the time being an owner of the building.

(5) On satisfaction of the liability arising from a demand under this section, any condition under subsection (2) above shall cease to be in force with respect to the building in question.

(6) The expressions "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" have the meanings assigned by section 116 below.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 116 [Meaning of relevant disposal and exempt disposal for the purposes of sections 114 and 115]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 161F and 161G: Page 106, line 27, leave out ("and 115") and insert ("to" [Conditon requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application]"). Page 106, line 36, leave out ("and 115") and insert ("to" [Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application]").

The noble Lord said: The amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 162: Page 107, line 2, leave out ("or")

The noble Lord said: Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 provides for assistance to be given to eligible owners who bought former public sector dwellings which are then designated as defective. Assistance may take the form of a reinstatement grant or repurchase where reinstatement is not feasible or economic or there is hardship. The assistance available under Part XVI is solely in respect of the fundamental inherent defects whose sudden discovery has caused that type of dwelling to be designated. For other types of repair and improvement, grant aid under Part XV of the 1985 Act is available and an owner of a designated property can of course apply for such a grant and undertake such works before the local authority decides what form of assistance is appropriate under Part XVI.

Where the person who received grant under Part XV subsequently receives help under Part XVI in the form of a reinstatement grant, he remains the owner of the property and can therefore continue to comply with Part XV grant conditions. Where, however, repurchase is the appropriate form of assistance, that is not the case. Schedule 20 to the 1985 Act therefore provides that Part XV grant conditions cease to have effect once the designated house is repurchased.

Under the provisions of Part VIII of the Bill, grant assistance will continue to be available provided that the works concerned are not of the kind for which assistance is available under Part XVI. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 therefore provide that, if a designated defective house is repurchased, its former owner will not be required to repay grant as would usually be the case where the property is disposed of within a certain period.

These amendments continue a form of exemption already available to those who have received grant and they offer protection to those who have unwittingly purchased defective housing from local authorities and certain other public sector authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am glad to hear that the Government are still prepared to protect certain sections of the community. Some people who have received the benefit of purchasing local authority houses at considerable discounts have then found to their dismay that the houses are not as good as they had thought and they have been granted substantial sums of money from the public purse. That has included their own ex-local authority—contributing, naturally, through the national Exchequer—in order to put those properties into a reasonable condition.

In the main of course we are talking about industrialised or semi-industrialised dwellings, which I believe are almost totally in the public sector. Over a period of years the Govenment instituted this scheme and I think that the first type of house which was designated as being available for these grants was known as the Airy house. The Government extended that category over a period of years. During my time in another place, through initiatives which we can also operate in this House, I was able to obtain a debate on industrialised housing. I received a tremendous amount of support from the other side, including the total support of the present Secretary of State, Mr. Patten. In his constituency there were a number of such houses of a different registered design but defective too. I do not know whether that type of house was added to the category. However, as a result of that exercise an obligation was placed on the local authority to repurchase the property should defects be found and—I think that I am right about this—if the person who bought it at a discount and received the grant cannot sell it.

I do not know what happens where a property has been resold because towards the end of my stewardship in West Leeds I found more than one tenant or constituent who had bought a type of house called a Smith house. Tenants had spent considerable sums of money on bringing properties into an acceptable condition so that they would pass any surveyor's examination as sound buildings of top quality. However, what has happened, as I have said before, is that people who exercised that option purchased an albatross because they have an asset which is of value to them but nobody else will buy it. A number of cases came to my notice of home owners who substantially reduced the valuation that was given to them by their valuers. I am not talking about the kind of sums of money that one pays for properties nowadays, but about the days when a normal semi-detached fetched a maximum of £20,000. Yet those home owners were still loaded with their properties after cutting the asking price.

There are thousands of properties that are still in the ownership of local authorities. Some of them have already been emptied and demolished or are in the process of being demolished. I raised this point with officials and Ministers from the department when we met a couple of weeks ago. I am referring to deck-access flats that in Manchester were known as the forts. As a local councillor in Manchester it was I who called them the forts as when I saw them I considered that the only thing missing was Beau Geste. I believe that Manchester has 3,000 to 4,000 such properties. All of them are less than 20 years old and some of them are already being demolished because of their condition and the undesirable kind of accommodation they provide. That accommodation quickly became unlettable.

In Leeds, in the constituency of my right honourable friend from another place, Merlyn Rees, there was a large development known as Hunslet Grange which comprised just over 1,000 units. Leeds City Council had to go through the same exercise as Manchester. This kind of accommodation was not built on the whim of governments but almost on the instructions of successive Conservative and Labour governments. They twisted the arms of local authorities as regards payment of subsidies. These local authorities are now paying for these properties. As I said, some of the properties have already been demolished and the others are in the process of being demolished.

When I spoke in another place some years ago, Leeds had reached the point where it had to find from its housing revenue account three-quarters of a million pounds as it had to pay for its properties over a period of 60 years. I would assume that Manchester's bill is probably four times that of Leeds. These bills have to be met by local authority tenants who are supposed to have received a square deal from this government. I ask the Minister what the Bill will mean to local authorities which have this problem. I am sad to have to say that all these authorities are in areas with social problems. The properties were a disastrous social experiment. Nevertheless, council house tenants, apart from the ones the Minister has referred to who are being specially cosseted, are having to pay for the experiment. A council house tenant who has remained in one of these properties as a tenant will have to subsidise the figures that the Minister has referred to through his rent. I view that as the complete opposite to fair treatment.

When I met officials in the department and explained the position, I was told that local authorities could include in their recommendations for permitted spending the cost of remedial treatment. My argument is that this charge should not have fallen and should not continue to fall as a charge on those local authorities which were dragooned into this type of accommodation.

I am sorry if I have detained the Committee at this late hour. That is not my style, but I think that the story has to be told. Will the Minister say whether there is any possibility under the Bill that local authorities which are left with this problem of unlettable properties which are less than 20 years old and which they are having to demolish through no fault of their own will be treated more generously? Is there anything in the Bill that will give them any comfort? Finally, have the Government any intention of extending the category of houses that qualify for assistance under the terms of the Bill?

Do I take it that the Minister is not going to answer the points that I raised? Will he do so at some other time?

Lord Reay

At the end of his speech the noble Lord asked two questions, one of which I am not able to answer now. I shall let him have the answer when I have it myself. His second question was whether the Bill added to the types of building which would be entitled to exemption. The answer is no.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 163: Page 107, line 5, at end insert ("or (f) a disposal under which the interest of a person entitled to assistance by way of repurchase under Part XVI of that Act (assistance for owners of defective housing) is acquired in accordance with Schedule 20 to that Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 163A: Page 107, line 21, leave out ("and 115") and insert ("to [Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application]").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 117 [Repayment of grant]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 163B to 163G: Page 107, line 27, at end insert ("any of subsections (2), (4) and (6) of section [Conditions relating to HMO grant] above or subsection (2) of section [Conditions requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application] above"). Page 107, line 29, after ("dwelling") insert ("house or building"). Page 107, line 30, after ("dwelling") insert ("house or building"). Page 107, line 33, after ("dwelling") insert ("house or building"). Page 107, line 37, after ("dwelling") insert ("house or building").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move amendments Nos. 163B to 163G en bloc. The amendments have already been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 118 agreed to.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 164: After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—

("Savings plan for home owners.

. The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, by order approve a scheme to make advances to recognised savings institutions enabling them to provide assistance to certain home owners in certain areas to set up savings or loan schemes for planned maintenance and repair of their property.").

The noble Earl said: I commend the amendment to the Minister. It is a very little one; it is an enabling amendment. It enables the Minister, should he see fit on some future occasion suitable to himself, to take action without the need for further primary legislation. It is therefore an amendment which is designed to save the time of this Chamber.

Many Members of the Committee are aware that we live in a country with an ageing housing stock. That housing stock is in danger of deteriorating more rapidly than it can be replaced, leading to an even greater shortage of houses and presumably therefore to an even greater escalation of house prices with all the inflationary effects that that involves. The preservation of our housing stock is a genuine, important, national interest and we hope that the amendment will contribute to it.

The Minister in another place, when he spoke to the amendment, appeared to be extremely worried by the prospect that it might involve some benefit to yuppies. The Minister said: It would be as objectionable to me as it would to the Opposition for yuppies to draw improvement grants when they can well afford to carry out improvements". I shall not presume to answer for the Opposition. But a liberal view of the matter would be that yuppies are entitled to equality before the law. It brings out that the Government are thinking too much in terms of aid for people and not enough in terms of the necessity of preserving properties. I believe also that they have rather questionable ideas about what people can afford. They tend to think as much in terms of a bottomless private purse as the Opposition are sometimes accused of thinking in terms of a bottomless public purse.

I speak here as a householder. I calculate what I believe I have. The mortgage rate goes up and I do not have that amount. I call in a builder. I get an estimate. I calculate what I can afford to spend and, if I end up paying less than 30 per cent. more than that, I am lucky. A good many householders, thinking of calling in the builder, agree with Sir Edward Coke who said: Put not thy finger in the mortar". It is an economically risky business. I commend the amendment to the Committee because I believe that even people with a fair amount of money may take those risks with a little less than the present necessary trepidation if it were to go through. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

Whatever the merit of this proposal, I think it would be wrong to give the Secretary of State an order-making power of this sort, where there could—on the National Home Improvement Council's admission—be considerable public expenditure implications, the magnitude of which I suspect the noble Earl has underestimated.

Even so, I am doubtful whether the scheme as I understand it is either necessary or cost-effective. The model of the home purchase assistance scheme has not been a particularly happy one. It has been noticeably ineffective and that is why we intend to bring it to an end as Clause 151 of the Bill provides.

I am also doubtful about the cost-effectiveness of a scheme which depends on an undifferentiated subsidy being given to savers in the scheme irrespective of their needs. Those who are most willing and able to afford to carry out essential works themselves are likely to be those who are most alive to the opportunities of such a scheme. Those who find difficulty saving anyway, or who are not motivated in this way, are unlikely to participate without a very large subsidy. This is where the grant system comes in. For those unable to afford the necessary works, grant will be available. This is much the better way of targeting public money where it is most needed.

Having said that, we of course welcome the work that the NHIC has done. We have already pointed out to it that a pilot scheme might be a way forward and that we would consider any proposals that it had to direct subsidy to those who most need it. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell

I can hardly say that that answer causes me great surprise. As soon as I observed the Minister pronounce the words "public expenditure", I waited to see whether he would genuflect. He did not quite do so, but he came a little near it. Money can save expenditure as well as creating it. If we let our housing stock deteriorate at the rate at which it risks deteriorating, we may end up spending a great deal more in the end. We have here an example of the fact that the Government do not have an adequate concept of the public interest, but that is something that I would not presume to argue out at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 [Group repair schemes and persons eligible to participate]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment Nos. 164A and 164B: Page 109, line 10, at end insert—("and (c) that, if the owner's interest which the person concerned has is an interest in a house in multiple occupation and that person is not a charity or the trustees of a charity, he gives a certificate under section 102(7) above"). Page 109, line 13, leave out from ("benefice") to end of line 17.

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 120 [Qualifying buildings and external works, etc.]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 164C: Page 110, line 28 after ("flat") insert ("(and, accordingly, does not include a house constructed as a house in multiple occupation)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 121 [Contributions by participants and limitations on works]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 164D and 164E: Page 1ll, line 12, at end insert— ("and in this subsection "house" includes a house in multiple occupation"). Page 111, line 24, after ("grant') insert ("or, as the case may require, an HMO grant").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 122 [Payment of balance of costs in case of certain disposals]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 164F: Page 112, line 11, after ("scheme") insert ("then, subject to subsection (5A) below").

The noble Lord said: Clause 122 makes those who participate in a group repair scheme liable to pay that part of the cost of works attributable to their dwelling after deduction of the contributions paid to them (referred to as the "outstanding balance") if they dispose of the property within three years. The exception is where the disposal is an exempt disposal as defined in Clause 116. This is the partner to the similar provisions in Clauses 114 to 115 which require the repayment of renovation grants in certain circumstances where certain disposals are made.

Clause 115(5)(b), however, also provides that repayment is not required where the disposal is for nothing or for less than an amount, or an amount calculated in accordance with a formula, prescribed by the Secretary of State. There is at present no similar provision in Clause 122.

Our intention is that nobody who participates in a group repair scheme should be in a worse position than if he had applied for an individual renovation grant for the works being undertaken. Clearly, if the requirements as to repayment of assistance are more stringent in respect of the group repair schemes, this may act as a disincentive and could jeopardise the successful outcome of a group repair. Amendments Nos. 164F and 164G therefore insert a similar provision to Clause 115(5)(b) into Clause 122 so that an assisted participant will only be required to pay the outstanding balance if the property is disposed of for more than a certain amount. This goes a considerable way to meeting the concerns expressed by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and in particular that the disincentive to participate in a scheme should be minimised. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 164G: Page 112, line 35, at end insert— ("(5A) The duty of an assisted participant under subsection (2) above shall cease to apply if he makes such a disposal as is mentioned in that subsection either for no consideration or for consideration of an amount less than that either prescribed, or calculated in accordance with a formula prescribed, by regulations made by the Secretary of State.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 123 [Assistance for provision of minor works to dwellings]:

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 165: Page 112, line 41, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 43 and insert—

1. ("(i) shall give assistance as mentioned in subsection (2) below for the provision or improvement of thermal insulation in a dwelling or the provision of improvement of draught proofing to doors and windows; and
2. (ii) may give assistance as mentioned in subsection (2) below—").

The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 166 and 167.

Lord Hesketh

Will the noble Earl also be speaking to Amendment No. 165A, which is grouped with the other three amendments?

Earl Russell

I understand that another noble Lord will speak to Amendment 165A. These amendments form a group of minor amendments logically belonging together that concern grants for minor works for energy conservation. I shall not repeat remarks I have made about energy conservation in general. I shall say that in a great many old houses around London the present standards of energy conservation are seriously deficient. If one goes near a window one's papers rustle; go near a door and your coat moves. That kind of thing costs money to put right. Not everybody has money ready to hand at every moment. However, not spending money can be expensive, not only to the householder but also to the country.

This Chamber has had some occasion within its recent memory to know quite how expensive electricity generation can be. If one is generating electricity simply to pump it out through the cracks in the window and under the door in order to heat the outer atmosphere, one is not doing anything very economical or useful. Indeed, one is probably doing something directly opposite.

When it is a matter of putting a case for nuclear power the Prime Minister is well aware of the dangers of the greenhouse effect and of overmuch consumption of fossil fuel. It seems to me that if it is relevant to that argument it is relevant to this one. We are consuming considerable quantities of energy quite unnecessarily because we are not insulating sufficiently well. These amendments could do a little to reverse that situation. I think that it could be regarded as being in the public interest to do something about it, even if perhaps occasionally it costs a little money at the time. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have to advise Members of the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 165B, 166, 167 or 168.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who moved the amendment, and to speak to Amendment No. 165A. It is important to remember that to make grant aid discretionary for home insulation and for draught-proofing to doors and windows, as at present Clause 123 provides, would create a very difficult situation for many owners of houses on a low income. The intention of this legislation is presumably to target grant aid on those with the lowest income. There is much evidence to show that those on low incomes are over-represented in property which is in a poor condition. It is that type of property which has a lower standard of insulation and the least efficient heating system. The low income groups are least able to afford to invest in energy efficiency measures, yet they can eventually reap the most benefit in terms of heating bills and improved comfort.

I am involved with a voluntary agency called the Neighbourhood Energy in Action of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is chairman. If he were here he would also be speaking about it. The agency carries out draught-proofing and insulation in the homes of elderly people and those on low income. From our work we know that if insulation is not carried out then the living conditions of many of those people become very prejudicial to their health. It is always important to remember that hypothermia is called the British disease. There are as many as 40,000 additional deaths from this cause in the two winter quarters.

We know that even if these elderly people can afford to pay greater heating bills, they are unwilling to do so. The only measure is to keep the cold out by insulation and draught-proofing. If grant aid is made discretionary—as this clause would provide—there is little doubt that the work would not be carried out. For these reasons and to ensure that this assistance still goes to those elderly and low income people who are in badly insulated houses, we feel that grant aid for energy efficiency measures should be made mandatory.

Lord Hesketh

These four amendments would have the effect of reintroducing a specific grant towards the cost of thermal insulation and draught-proofing. It would be available to both public and private tenants as well as owner occupiers. The local authority would be required to give such grant.

A grant of this sort exclusively for insulation and draught-proofing would not sit well within the provisions of this clause and within the wider context provided by Part VIII of the Bill. I should remind the Committee that Clause 123 enables local authorities to provide assistance—either in the form of grant or materials or both—towards the cost of improving thermal insulation and draught-proofing. It also enables authorities to give help for other minor repairs, improvements or adaptations which would enable an elderly person to stay in their own home in comfort and dignity or to move in with relatives or friends. It is a clause designed specifically to help elderly people with whatever combination of simple measures seems sensible to the local authority and the applicant at the time. It is designed to be flexible and sensitive to local requirements. We expect most of this help to be directed at people on low incomes, especially the elderly, as part of a "care and repair" service. It would be quite alien to the spirit and purpose of this clause were these amendments to be accepted and a mandatory requirement inserted simply for thermal insulation work. It would mean that local authorities would have to give a grant for this purpose—and on a separate basis—even if other minor repairs and improvements were at least as important, if not more so, to the applicant.

We have not lightly gone down the road of creating an entirely new form of minor works assistance, for which this clause provides, designed to help elderly and other low income people with a wide range of work essential to their comfort and wellbeing.

It is most important that we do not earmark particular types of work within it for special treatment because it would distort the priorities that are properly set locally. It would probably distort the pattern of expenditure which best reflects local circumstances. I have no doubt that the type of work to which the noble Lord attaches so much importance will feature strongly in the assistance provided under the clause.

I urge the Committee to reject the amendments because they are based on the special treatment of insulation work at the expense of all other work which a local community may need.

Earl Russell

I have sometimes listened to Ministers putting a Treasury case, arguing the problem which is created by the competing claims for one form of expenditure or another. But what is true for Treasury Ministers is also true for household budgets. Those who manage household budgets are constantly facing competing claims for different forms of expenditure. An excellent case is invariably made out for most of those forms of expenditure. An irresistible case is made out for many more of them than could be met. So if it is left to the discretion of the managers of household budgets, however necessary some of this work may be, one cannot guarantee that it will always be done. If the state should believe that it is in the national interest, partly on the grounds of a long-term saving of public money, that it should be done, it is a legitimate object of public policy to use financial incentives to encourage it among a rather wider circle of people than the Minister at present seems to be contemplating.

Here we have a disagreement about the proper functions of the state, the nature of the public interest and I think also—this should be stressed—about the urgency of the need for energy conservation. But these disagreements stretch far beyond the scope of the amendment. I do not think I would prosecute my cause in any of them by pressing the amendment at this time of night. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 165A to 168 not moved.]

Clause 123 agreed to.

Clause 124 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:

10 p.m.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 169: Page 113, line 47, at end insert ("with the exception of expenditure on energy efficiency measures where the contribution shall be 100%").

The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed 100 per cent. of the cost of giving grants for energy efficiency measures. I am sorry to persist with the subject of energy, but we on this side of the House believe it is very important and we had hoped that we might have had a rather better response from the Government.

The current situation is that expenditure on grants which local authorities make through the homes insulation scheme for loft insulation is reimbursed 100 per cent. by the Treasury. In addition, the energy grant for draught-proofing is paid directly by the Department of Employment. This therefore effectively creates a mandatory allocation with none of the costs of energy efficiency grant aid being met by local authorities. In fact local authorities can increase effectively the resources available in their own areas by providing grants under the homes insulation scheme. There would seem little incentive for local authorities to make grants for energy efficiency measures available under the new system if they have to make a contribution from their own resources, which God knows are restricted enough.

In addition, such grants will have to be met for housing investment programmes without any corresponding increase in resources. They will therefore have to compete with other housing capital needs in local authority areas. Given the importance of energy efficient measures in terms of the positive effect they can have on health in low income households and the need to reduce consumption of energy to minimise the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, every encouragement should be given to local authorities to provide grant aid for energy efficiency measures. The amendment will provide the incentive by ensuring that any local authority which pays such increased grants would have increased resources available to it. I beg to move.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I support the noble Lord and stress the importance which I attach to the amendment. I agree with him that there would seem to be little incentive for local authorities to make grants for energy efficiency measures if they have to make a contribution from their own resources. The whole matter hinges on that. I should like to hear from the Minister why he thinks there will be an incentive for local authorities to pay for this enormously important work.

Lord Hesketh

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to contribute towards the cost of grants for energy efficiency measures at a rate of 100 per cent. Again it would mean that energy efficiency measures are to be treated differently, and more favourably, than any other form of repair or improvement. That is difficult to justify. We intend that a uniform rate—probably 75 per cent.—should apply to all grants. That will ensure consistency of treatment across the board. The Bill already provides for a higher rate of contribution to be paid on works in renewal areas where the case is made by the authority concerned. That applies just as much to energy related work as to any other type of works.

We fully accept the contribution of energy efficiency measures in the improvement of the housing stock, but we do not accept that it should be favoured above all other types of work regardless of circumstances. In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, we believe that 75 per cent. will still be a good grant.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

On this side of the Committee we fully appreciate that where there are finite resources and infinite demands for them, hard choices have to be made. However, the Minister should take on board the fact that, where authorities are hard pressed, the making of any contribution will enable a treasurer and council officers legitimately to say that they cannot afford this inducement. If they cannot afford it, thousands of homes will not be willing to find the other amounts required.

The Government are guilty of restricting the amount of money available. By their macroeconomic policies they decide how much to bring in and how much to spend. They themselves are contributing to the failure to insulate homes. It is a bad policy and the Minister should be ashamed of it.

Lord Ross of Newport

I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. It is a great pity that at this time of night we should be debating energy saving. There are other debates to come which should also not take place when so few noble Lords are present. Those debates relate to the new commercial rating clauses. It is wrong. We should be giving much more attention to energy saving. I give notice that we shall raise these matters ad infinitum, and certainly on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124 agreed to.

Clause 125 [Persons entitled to grants]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 169A to 169D: Page 114, line 38, after ("grant") insert ("other than one made on a tenants' common parts application"). Page 115, line 4, at end insert ("or (d) if, in the case of an applicant for an HMO grant, he ceases to have the intention specified in a certificate under section 102(7) above."). Page 115, line 5, after ("applicant") insert ("whose application is a landlord's common parts application"). Page 115, line 6,leave out from ("grant") to end of line 20 and insert— ("(a) if he ceases to have a duty or power to carry out the relevant works; or (b) if he ceases to have such an interest in the building as is referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section [Common parts grants: preliminary conditions) (4) above.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 126 [Cases in which grants may be re-calculated, withheld or repaid]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 170 and 170A: Page 115, line 27, leave out from second ("the") to ("lower") in line 28 and insert ("aggregate of the cost of completing the eligible works and the costs incurred with respect to preliminary or ancillary services and charges, is or is likely to be"). Page 115, line 31, at end insert ("and the application was not one which they were required to approve by virtue of section [Duty to approve applications arising out of certain statutory notices] above").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 127 [Power of local housing authority to carry, out works which would attract grant]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 170B: Page 116, line 10, leave out from ("who") to end of line 15 and insert— ("(a) has a power or duty to carry out the relevant works; and (b) has such an interest in the building or in a flat in the building as is referred to in subsection (4) of section [Common parts grants: preliminary conditions] above").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 128 [Parsonages, charities etc.]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 170C: Page 116, line 18, leave out from ("benefice") to ("and") in line 20.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 129 [Orders and regulations]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 170D: Page 116, leave out lines 30 to 32.

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. As it stands, Clause 129(2) enables the order-making powers available to the Secretary of State under Part VIII to be exercised differently in England and in Wales. Clause 129(2) is no longer considered to be required in the light of a new clause containing more comprehensive powers already tabled. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 130 [Interpretation of Part VIII]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 170E to 171D:

Page 117, line 10, leave out ("dwellings") and insert ("flats").

Page 117, line 19, leave out ("110(2)(b)") and insert ("110(2)").

Page 117, line 24, at end insert— (" "house in multiple occupation" has the same meaning as in Part VII above").

Page 117, line 27, at end insert— (" "landlord's common parts application" has the meaning assigned by section [Common parts grants: preliminary conditions] (2)(b) above").

Page 117, line 30, at end insert— (" "occupying tenant" has the meaning assigned by section [Common parts grants: preliminary conditions] (2)(a)above").

Page 117, line 39, at end insert— (" "participating landlord" has the meaning assigned by section [Common parts grants: preliminary conditions] (3) above").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 172 and 172A:

Page 117, line 39, at end insert— (" "preliminary or ancillary services and charges" has the meaning assigned by section 99(2A) above").

Page 117, line 48, at end insert— (" "tenants' common parts application" has the meaning assigned by section [Common parts grants: preliminary conditions] (2)(c) above").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 131 agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Local Government Finance Act 1988: Amendments]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.172B:

Page 162, line 6, at end insert— ("2A. The following section shall be inserted after section 26—

"Registration officer: information.

26A.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

1. (a) the Secretary of State serves a notice on a registration officer for a charging authority requiring him to supply to the Secretary of State information specified in the notice,
2. (b) the information is in the possession or control of the officer and was obtained by him for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this Part,
3. (c) the information is required by the Secretary of State for a purpose other than that of carrying out his functions under this Act, and
4. (d) the information is not personal information.

(2) The officer shall supply the information required, and shall do so in such form and manner and at such time as the Secretary of State specifies in the notice.

(3) Personal information is information which relates to an individual (living or dead) who can be identified from that information or from that and other information supplied to any person by the registration officer; and personal information includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intention; of any person in respect of the individual."").

The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 173B, 173C, 174RA and 188NH. The purpose of the new section inserted into the 1988 Act by Amendment No. 172B is to enable the Secretary of State to seek information from registration officers for purposes unconnected with those of the 1988 Act. It would place a duty upon CCROs to supply that information so long as it would not reveal anything about individuals. This is what paragraph 2A would achieve.

Paragraph (3), which inserts paragraph 13A into Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, allows the Secretary of State, by means of regulations, to enable the CCRO to supply information to anyone who seeks it from him, if he chooses to do so, and to charge a prescribed fee. Once again, he may not supply any information which reveals anything about individuals.

Amendment No. 174RA places upon CCROs in Scotland a similar duty to provide information to the Secretary of State. As in England and Wales, the amendment also gives them the power to supply information to other persons, provided that the information is not personal information.

These provisions are aimed at enabling proper use to be made of the statistical information in community charges registers, while making it clear that the information to be released must not include any personal data. This information is a valuable new source of data about the adult population, gathered at considerable effort, and it would be a pity not to make use of it for planning and research purposes. All of this is, of course, subject to the need to safeguard confidentiality.

Without these provisions, CCROs would not have the power to provide any information, however much they might regard requests as reasonable, and however much they might want to help. We believe that this is an unsatisfactory position and the local authority associations agree with this view. We will, of course, take account of the views of local authority associations and of practitioners before making any requests for information under this section. I want to stress that the measure protects personal information and that it is entirely consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. I beg to move.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I have only one question. The Minister concluded his remarks by saying that the proposals are entirely consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Can the Minister confirm that the registrar has confirmed that to be the case? In other words, is this an opinion or has it been confirmed? When the matter was raised under, for example, the Football Spectators Bill, there was a need to be assured that confidentiality would be protected. I know that the registrar was forthright on what needs to be done to protect the individual.

I understood what the Minister said about consultation with and approval by local authorities. This is a benign series of amendments but I should like to be assured that the registrar himself has in effect cleared this legislation as far as his duties are concerned.

The Earl of Caithness

As far as I understand, yes he has.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 172C: Page 162, line 6, at end insert— ("2A The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 1 (exemption for persons who are severely mentally impaired)— (3) A person is severely mentally impaired if he is suffering from severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning" ").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with Alzheimer's disease. There have been reports in the press which leave one to understand that the Government are minded to exempt from the poll tax sufferers from senile dementia who are living at home. This amendment is intended to probe the Government's intentions in that respect.

There have been difficulties in the past with the definition of severe mental impairment, though it seems that these have now been overcome. A practice note on exemptions has now been published and all those concerned with the matter are now awaiting the government proposals for exempting from the community charge those with severe mental impairment resulting in senile dementia.

The Minister will know that there has been considerable confusion in Scotland on this matter. I gave examples at Second Reading which I shall not repeat now but one headline from a newspaper in Scotland read: Alzheimer poll tax exemptions 'in chaos'". The same confusion could arise in England and Wales unless the present situation is corrected.

The medical profession is now confident that it has a satisfactory means of resolving this problem of definition. The crucial point is that the amendment is based on the effects of severe impairment and not its causes, to ensure that people with severe dementia shall be treated in the same way as others with a severe mental impairment who are already exempt.

There is a simple question. Why should it be any harder to make judgments about the level of mental impairment of those with severe dementia than about others who suffer from severe mental impairments and who are already exempted? Eight out of nine dementia sufferers live in the community and obviously exemption from the poll tax for those suffering most severely could save considerable expenditure as regards institutional care. Professor Elaine Murphy, a professor of psychogeriatrics at Guy's Hospital, has said: The idea that doctors cannot distinguish between severities of dementia in a simple fashion is simply wrong.

That is the background to the amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to make it clear on behalf of the Government that they intend to bring forward their own amendment in order to deal with this problem. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I have every confidence that the Minister will say helpful things concerning this amendment and I shall listen very carefully to what he has to say. Sadly, when the issue was raised last year in connection with the Local Government Finance Bill, which was the basis for the community charge, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave two reasons why he was unable to make exemptions. The first was that the person would suffer from social stigma as a result of being exempted. The troubles of those who suffer from this range of diseases are already known and accepted. One would not wish to add to those difficulties by introducing the possibility of their exemption becoming known, but exemption would be an act of charity which would not be misunderstood. It would be recognised that the people in question were being treated generously, charitably and also fairly and justly by the Government.

The second reason that the noble Earl gave last year appears in the Official Report at col. 793 on 24th May. It was that the medical profession would be unable to define the severely mentally handicapped in a consistent fashion. One can argue on a similar basis as regards a large range of issues. When one talks about the mind and about the nature of this disease, there are certainly going to be inconsistencies. I hope and have every confidence that the Minister recognises that, as the Government are looking at a number of exemptions which they have been persuaded to accept, this is one exemption that they can accept for inclusion.

Lord Hesketh

I should first of all like to make it clear to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Graham of Edmonton, and others that the Government have every sympathy with the intentions which lie behind this amendment. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to exempt from the community charge everyone who is severely mentally impaired, and we certainly have no wish to discriminate against certain groups of severely mentally impaired people.

It is true that the current definition in the legislation of severe mental impairment does not include people suffering from a disease or degenerative condition. But the reasons are purely practical. In matters such as this the Government must act on the basis of medical advice. At present there is no simple and consistent test which can be applied by general practitioners which will determine the point at which the mental impairment resulting from such conditions is of sufficient severity to warrant exemption. It would not be feasible to rely on a test which required a specialist to certify in every case that an individual was severely mentally impaired.

I am happy to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we believe we are now very close to a solution to this problem. We intend to make an announcement before the Report stage of this Bill. In the light of that fact, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Carter

This is extremely good news and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 172D: Page 162, line 17, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs").

The noble Lord said: These amendments make some technical changes to the provisions on discounts already contained in this schedule. They do not amend the intention of the provision that the regulations may enable local authorities to give discounts to community chargepayers who elect either to pay ther community charge in one lump sum or to pay by a method which the authority regards as particularly cost effective. This may include, for example, payment by direct debit. It will be for local authorities to decide whether they wish to give discounts and, if so, the conditions upon which these would be given. As with all discretion relating to financial matters, the local authority will have to exercise that discretion reasonably, and it will be for the local authority auditor to ensure that this is done. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 172E: Page 162, line 21, leave out ("any") and insert ("a person's sole").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 172F to 172J: Page 162, line 25, leave out ("or in such other manner as may be prescribed"). Page 162, line 28, after ("empowering") insert ("or requiring"). Page 162, line 31, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("prescribed"). Page 162, line 36, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 37 and insert ("equivalent to that included under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above subject to any modifications the Secretary of State sees fit.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 172F, 172G, 172H and 172J en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Carter moved Amendment 173ZA: Page 162, line 42, at end insert— ("(1A) In that Schedule, the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 5— 5A (1) The regulations shall make provision that, subject to the provisions of this Act, a person falling within sub-paragraph (4) below shall be entitled to a rebate in respect of the community charge which is broadly comparable in its financial effect to any rebate to which they are entitled before 1st April 1990, in respect of the rates chargeable on any hereditament to which this paragraph applies. (2) This paragraph applies to any person falling within sub-paragraph (4) below who is entitled before 1st April 1990 to a rebate in respect of a hereditament which is—

1. (a) a hereditament in which a room other than a bathroom or lavatory is predominantly used (whether for providing therapy or for other purposes) by and is required for meeting the needs of a disabled person who resides in the hereditament;
2. (b) a hereditament in which there is an additional bathroom or lavatory which is required for meeting the needs of a disabled person who resides in the hereditament;
3. (c) a hereditament which is equipped with a heating installation for providing heating in two or more rooms, being heating required for meeting the needs of a disabled person who resides in the hereditament;
4. (d) a hereditament in which there is any other facility which is required for meeting the needs of a disabled person who resides in the hereditament;
5. (e) a hereditament in which there is sufficient floor space to permit the use of wheelchair used by and required for meeting the needs of a disabled person who resides in the hereditament;
255
6. (f) a hereditament which includes or consists of a garage, carport or land used otherwise than temporarily for accommodating a vehicle used by and required for meeting the needs of a disabled person;

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) above —

1. (a) references to anything being required for meeting the needs of a disabled person are references to its being essential or of major importance to his well-being by reason of the nature and extent of his disability; and
2. (b) references to a disabled person who resides in a hereditament include reference to a disabled person who is usually resident there.

(4) The person entitled to a rebate under this paragraph is—

1. (a) the disabled person if he is the occupier of the hereditament or makes payments by way of rent in respect of all or any of it; or
2. (b) any person who is a member of the same household as the disabled person and either is the occupier of the hereditament or makes such payments as aforesaid.

(5) Where the person entitled to a rebate under this paragraph is also entitled to a rebate under a scheme made under section 11 or 12 of the Local Government Act 1974 in respect of the same hereditament and period, that scheme shall have effect as if the rates chargeable on the hereditament for that period were reduced by the amount of the rebate under this paragraph."").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a problem to which I first drew attention on Second Reading. The disabled persons rate relief legislation of 1978 gave disabled people rate relief in relation to extensions or adaptions to their property which were carried out to make such property more suitable to their needs as disabled people. The measure ensured that disabled people were not penalised by the rating system when they made adaptions to their property which would otherwise have incurred extra rate demands.

Obviously, with the ending of the rates system attached to property there is a real problem in this respect. The move to the poll tax has changed the situation dramatically. Because the poll tax is based on individuals and not on property the relief has been abolished as the rate is no longer directly levied on property and therefore the relief is not relevant to the new system.

However, this change will leave many people who received rebates under the old system having to pay substantially more under the new system. In many cases this amounts to twice the liability under the poll tax than under the old rebated rate system. I gave many such examples on Second Reading. I shall not go into detail now in order to save the Committee's time.

The Spastics Society has been contacted by many people who will be substantially worse off after the changeover from rates to poll tax. In some cases the extra amount these families will have to pay amounts to sums in excess of £300 a year. That is a significant sum when added to the extra costs that families already dealing with disability are facing.

The amendment is an attempt to preserve the advantages of the 1978 Act while accepting that the link with property is now severed with the end of the rating system. The amendment is intended to ensure that the broad effect of the rebate is preserved for the benefit of the individuals who up to now have enjoyed the benefits of the rate rebate system.

We recognise the fact that it will not be possible to give relief to people who may have to adapt their properties in the future. That is not the intention. However, it is intended to preserve the savings which disabled people have been able to make until now under the old system.

After the Second Reading debate I received a letter from the Minister which was helpful. However, it rather missed the point of this amendment. It referred to income support, to the people on income support and also to the help given in respect of the poll tax to those with disabilities. But this is a situation where there is one disabled spouse and one earner in the family. This means that the income of the family is such that the couple are not eligible for income support. Their bill under the poll tax will be the full rate for two people compared to the rebated rate which they previously paid. This means for many disabled people a substantial increase in their outgoings.

The proposal is intended only to protect the rebates of the people who already receive them. It is not intended to cover the future. If the Government are not able to accept the amendment in full, I hope that the Minister can perhaps indicate that they will be prepared to accept some form of transitional relief to ease the burden over the next three to five years. I beg to move.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

The amendment seeks to replace relief under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act by a similar relief for disabled people who are subject to a community charge. That subject has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding, and I hope to have an opportunity to set out the facts. Being disabled does not in itself entitle anyone to rate relief. Rate relief for disabled people applies only where, as a result of the disability, the individual has had alterations made to his or her home; for example, the installation of a downstairs bathroom. Ordinarily, such alterations would count as improvements which would increase the rateable value of the property. That would have the unfortunate effect of requiring a disabled person who had altered his or her home to pay higher rates for a similar property than a non-disabled person.

The Rating (Disabled Persons) Act provides relief for rates. It does not provide relief for the rates which would have applied before the alteration. It merely ensures that disabled and non-disabled people are treated alike for rating purposes. That way of proceeding was necessary because rating was based on the value of the property.

The community charge, however, is not based on any such thing. There is no question of a disabled person having to pay more than his neighbour. There is therefore no need for the equivalent of rate relief because—to take an analogy—we return to the situation whereby there will be no extra increase because of the similarity of the properties, in this case there being similarity of people. Disabled people who have low incomes will of course be entitled to rebates which are more generous than rate rebates. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment tonight.

Lord Carter

That is the answer I expected. It misses the point I made. I understand the logic of the Minister's argument. The point is that there is a substantial number of disabled people—this is happening now in Scotland and it will happen in England and Wales—who face an increase in their outgoings as a result of the change to the poll tax. They are not eligible for income support. They now face a poll tax for two people compared to the reduced rates that they were paying before. They do not think of their neighbours. All they can think of is their own outgoings this year, and in Scotland it was last year. There is a substantial increase. I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage. We shall have to return to it at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 173A: Page 162, line 42, at end insert— ("5A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that where—

1. (a) a person has sole liability to pay a sum on account in respect of an authority's community charge,
2. (b) a sum smaller than that sum is paid, and
3. (c) such conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled, the authority may accept the smaller sum in satisfaction of the liability to pay the sum on account.

(2) The regulations may include provision that—

1. (a) for prescribed purposes the sum on account shall be treated as having been paid in full;
2. (b) for other prescribed purposes the fact that only the smaller sum has been paid shall be taken into account.

(3) The regulations may include, as regards a case where persons are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum on account in respect of an authority's community charge, provision equivalent to that included under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above subject to any modifications the Secretary of State sees fit.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 173AA: Page 162, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) In that schedule the following sub-paragraph shall be added after paragraph 8 (v). (6) Nothing in the regulations shall be construed as requiring a non-resident landlord or his employee to supply information concerning his tenants or licensees to the Registration Officer"").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to seek to ensure that regulations made under Schedule 2 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will not enable the community charge registration officer to require a non-resident landlord or, where the landlord is an organisation, an employee of that landlord to supply information on tenants or licensees and their families.

Regulation 4 of the Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 enables the community charge registration officer to request an individual responsible for a particular property to supply information regarding that property to him for the purpose of compiling the community charge register. Everyone aged 18 or over who lives in, leases or owns the property is automatically an individual responsible for that property. However, Regulation 4 (2) (c) also empowers the registration officer to designate any other individual aged 18 or over whom he considers appropriate. That leaves it open for the registration officer to designate a non-resident landlord or, where the landlord is an organisation, an employee of the landlord to supply information.

When the regulations were in draft form, the National Federation of Housing Associations sought assurance from the Department of the Environment that the word "individual" meant precisely that. There was no intention that a housing association should under any circumstances be required to give information on its tenants and their families. Apart from a breach of confidentiality between landlord and tenant, with its attendant problems, there is no reason why a non-resident landlord should have in its possession and control the information needed by the registration officer for the compilation of the register.

A landlord will know the name of it; tenant and may well know the family circumstances when the tenancy commenced. There is however no reason or requirement for it to have up-to-date information on the actual composition of the family or of the relationships within it. If the landlord gave inaccurate information to the registration officer needless problems would ensue for both landlord and tenant. As the charge is an individual one, responsibility for supplying information should rest with the individual or a member of the close family.

The NFHA was therefore pleased when the regulations concerning responsible individuals quite clearly excluded organisations by referring to "an individual aged 18 or over". However, this is now being interpreted in one or two local authority areas as enabling the community charge registration officer to designate an employee of a housing association as a responsibile individual for a particular housing scheme. This is quite unacceptable for the reasons outlined and places a burden on that individual quite outside his or her normal duties as a housing worker. Anyone designated under regulation 4 (2) (c) has the right of appeal against that designation. But once again it is not a situation which ordinary housing workers within a housing association should have to face.

The obvious intention of the regulations is that an organisation should not be required to supply information to the community charge registration officer. What is happening where an employee of a landlord is being designated is quite clearly a circumvention of the regulations' intent. Because of that the amendment will prevent any future such designations by making it impossible to require a non-resident landlord or its employee to supply information concerning its tenants or licensees. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

This amendment concerns the information-gathering powers of community charge registration officers. It would prevent a registration officer from requesting information from a non-resident landlord or his employee about his tenants or licensees.

It may help the Committee if I explain the powers of the registration officer to seek information for the purpose of the community charge register. A registration officer may seek information from a so-called "responsible individual" for the purposes of determining whether that individual or anyone else is, has been or is about to become subject to a community charge by virtue of residence at or an interest in a particular property.

Anyone who owns, leases or occupies property is automatically a responsible individual for that property. Every responsible individual has a duty to respond to a request properly made by the registration officer, and where there is more than one responsible individual for a property, the duty is discharged when any one of them does so.

No responsible individual has any duty to supply any information which is not within his possession or control. This provision is not therefore a licence for the responsible individual to pry into the affairs of others who may be living in the building. If the responsible individual knows nothing about the other people in the building, he has simply to say so.

In a property occupied by tenants or licensees of a non-resident landlord, we would expect the registration officer to seek information for the purposes of compiling the register from the occupants rather than the landlord. But the landlord is also a responsible individual by virtue of the fact that he owns the property, and there is no reason why he should not be asked for information if the registration officer considers it appropriate to do so. As I have said, there is no obligation on any individual to supply any information which is not already in his possession or control. But where the landlord has relevant information he will be under a duty to supply it. This cannot act to the detriment of his tenants since they themselves will be under a duty to register for the community charge if they have reason to believe they are subject to it. It is for these reasons that we resist the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I understand what the Minister has said. However, the National Federation of Housing Associations is unhappy, not at the intention of the subsection but at the way it will be carried out in practice. That unhappiness was shown in the comments I made on behalf of the federation. If the federation writes to the Minister further expressing its disquiet at the situation, will he agree to give further consideration to this matter? I am not talking about consideration in Committee or at the next stage of this Bill. If, however, as a responsible body, the federation believes that some community charge officers are exceeding their authority, and certainly the intention of the Bill, will the Minister give an undertaking here that he is prepared to consider its comments without prejudice?

Lord Hesketh

I clearly cannot give any specific undertaking, but I shall of course be more than happy to receive such a letter as described by the noble Lord.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister will have the letter on Thursday. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 173B and 173C: Page 163, line 3 at end insert— ("(3) In that Schedule paragraph 12 (information) shall be omitted."). Page 163, line 3, at end insert— 13A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that a registration officer for a charging authority—

1. (a) may supply relevant information to any person who requests it for a purpose not relating to this Part;
2. (b) may charge a prescribed fee for supplying the information;
3. (c) shall account for and pay any such fee to the charging authority for which he is the registration officer.

(2) Information is relevant information if—

1. (a) it was obtained by the officer for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this Part, and
2. (b) it is not personal information.

(3) Personal information is information which relates to an individual (living or dead) who can be identified from that information or from that and other information supplied to any person by the registration officer; and personal information includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of any person in respect of the individual."").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 173B and 173C en bloc. These amendments have both been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to. Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 174: Page 163, line 34, at end insert— ("6A. In subsection (3) of section 26 (community charges registration officer for the Common Council) for the word "chamberlain" there shall be substituted "person having responsibility for the administration of certain of the financial affairs of the Council under section 6(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.").

The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment following the amendment made in Clause 6 (1) which requires the City to appoint an officer to be responsible for its financial affairs. This amendment changes the definition of the officer who is the community charges registration officer for the City so that this is no longer the Chamberlain but the person responsible for the financial affairs of the City. This brings the City into line with all other charging authorities. The paragraph therefore amends Section 26(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by substituting for the word "Chamberlain" the words: person having responsibility for the administration of certain of the financial affairs of the Council under section 6(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 174AZA: Page 165, line 26, at end insert— ("10A.—(1) Section 40 (standard community charge multipliers) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (3) for "in regulations made by the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "for purposes of this section by the authority". (3) In subsection (4) for "specified" there shall be substituted "prescribed" and for ", 1½ and 2" there shall be substituted "and 1½". (4) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (11)— (11) A charging authority may specify a class for the purposes of this section by reference only to one or more of the following factors—

1. (a) the use to which properties are put or are intended to be put;
2. (b) whether properties are occupied;
3. (c) the period for which properties have been unoccupied;
4. (d) the circumstances, other than financial circumstances, of persons subject to standard community charges;
5. (e) the capacity in which persons are subject to standard community charges;
6. (f) whether properties fall within a class prescribed in regulations under this section.

(11A) The Secretary of State in regulations under this section may prescribe a class by reference to such factors as he sees fit. (5) In subsection (12) for "(11)" there shall be substituted "(11A)" and for "specified" there shall be substituted "prescribed". (6) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (12)— (13) An authority which has exercised the power to specify classes for the purposes of this section shall, before the end of 21 days beginnning with the day of doing so, publish a notice giving details of the exercise of the power in at least one newspaper circulating in the authority's area. (14) Failure to comply with subsection (13) above does not invalidate the exercise of the power. (15) The power of a charging authority to specify classes for the purposes of this section includes power to amend or revoke a specification made in exercise of the power." ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 174ZDR. These amendments are designed to allow local authorities more flexibility in setting multipliers for the standard community charge. The standard community charge arises when domestic property is not used as a sole or main residence. This will apply, for example, to many second homes. Amendment No. 174AZA relates to England and Wales. Currently a local authority has discretion to set a level for the standard charge up to a maximum of twice the level of its personal charge. It may set different levels for different classes of property, but in doing so it must use the classes which have been prescribed in regulations by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

This amendment gives local authorities the power to specify their own classes of property if they wish to do so. They will still have to have regard to the maximum multipliers specified by my right honourable friend for the existing classes but they will be able to specify additional classes. As an example, they may use this discretion to allow a lower multiplier for property which is unoccupied because the owner is required as a condition of his employment to live in a particular dwelling.

The use of this discretion will be for local authorities; but in specifying classes they will be able to take into account only the fact that property is unoccupied; the use of the property; the circumstances, other than the financial circumstances, of the persons subject to the charge; the capacity in which persons are subject to the charge; and whether the property falls into a class prescribed by my right honourable friend. They will therefore not be able to discriminate according to the size or the value of the property or by reference to the financial circumstances of the individual.

Amendment No. 174ZDR makes a similar provision for Scotland. The legislative background is different in Scotland but essentially, as in England and Wales, the power will be available to the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of premises and the maximum community charge multiplier which will apply to each class. Similarly, local authorities will have the power to determine within certain limits additional classes for which they can set different multipliers.

The opportunity has been taken to align the discretion that the Scottish authorities have to set their standard charge multipliers with that available to English and Welsh authorities. Thus in future Scottish authorities will be able to determine multipliers of zero, a half, one, one and a half or two, subject to any maximum which the Secretary of State has prescribed for a particular class.

So far as concerns Scotland, the new proposals take account of many of the comments made to Her Majesty's Government by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the operation of the standard charge amendments. We shall be consulting CoSLA further in the coming months about the detailed implications of the new arrangements. As in England and Wales, I believe that the charging authorities will welcome this additional flexibility. We are not changing the basic mechanics of the standard community charge, and existing computer systems should be able to adapt to the new arrangements without difficulty. I beg to move.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Ross of Newport

I am sorry to intervene at this late hour but I believe that this is an important amendment. We are being addressed at a pace of knots. But as I understand it local authorities in England and Wales will be able to set a standard charge up to a maximum of multiple of one and a half but in Scotland authorities may apply a multiple of up to two. I welcome the flexibility that means that they do not have to charge as much as one and a half and can opt for less. Am I correct in saying that that is the maximum? That is what I understood from what the Minister said and from what I read in the amendments on the Marshalled List.

I am slightly disappointed by that. As I mentioned either at Second Reading of this Bill or of the Housing Act, I believe that here is a method by which local authorities could deal with the problem of second homes which are unoccupied for much of the year. That is an issue about which people in many parts of the country are very annoyed, particularly in Wales and the South-West. This provision seemed to give the local authority some flexibility. To have a multiplier of two made some sense and I am sorry that it is being held to one and a half.

We are about to discuss a host of amendments which are of vital importance. They deal not only with the question of the community charge but also of commercial rating. I do not believe that it is right that we should be discussing these issues which affect people's pockets to a great extent at this time of night in a very sparsely populated Chamber. I am glad that the Leader of the House is present to hear this protest.

I believe that the decision to freeze the standard charge at a multiplier of one and half is wrong. There should be the flexibility to charge more. I have to say in his absence that the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, thought that I had a point when I made the suggestion that this was something that could be used to provide a disincentive to people buying up properties in rural areas. That is causing a great deal of concern, particularly in Wales and in other parts of the country. There should be some way of having some control and making people pay more if they want homes in the country and occupy them only for a very short period of every year. It is an issue which makes people in rural areas pretty mad, and I share their concern.

Lord Hesketh

Perhaps I may address two of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has brought to the Committee's attention. First, dealing with this part of the amendment in Schedule 5, with regard to the community charge, was the wish of the Opposition for the convenience, I believe, of the Committee. Secondly, with regard to the multiplier, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, that it is two in both countries. Finally, I know that he would like to see a higher multiplier, but we addressed the deprivation which was drawn to the department's attention, particularly that of single people who had to live on the premises of their employment and would then be open to a double charge in their own home. That is why we felt that there was a case of true and genuine deprivation.

Lord Ross of Newport

I welcome that response and I shall certainly have to think about it, but the Government had here a system which they could have used to better ability. I am satisfied with the response.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZB: Page 165, line 33, at end insert— ("11A. In section 42 (contents of local lists) in subsection (4) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "the rateable value of the hereditament". 11B. In section 44 (occupied hereditaments: supplementary) in subsection (2) the words from "or" to the end shall be omitted. 11C. In section 46 (unoccupied hereditaments: supplementary) in subsection (2) the words from "or" to the end shall be omitted.").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 174AZK, 174AZM, 174AZS, 188NC and 188NH.

These amendments deal with the valuation of property that is part domestic and part non-domestic. The valuation of these hereditaments is a complex technical problem. The existing provisions of the 1988 Act would not produce the results for which we had hoped for many ratepayers. In, for example, a shop with living accommodation, or a hotel or boarding-house with permanent residents, the extent to which space can be used for non-domestic purposes varies with both the preference of the individual occupier and, particularly in the case of holiday accommodation, by season. Furthermore, this would place an obligation on the valuation officer to look at the use of every property before assessing its rateable value. Because one in eight hereditaments fall into the composite category, it is important to find a sensible way to arrive at an equitable valuation for these properties.

We believe that we have done so as a result of consulting widely on five options for handling this valuation matter. A large majority of those who responded favoured a valuation method making assumptions about the average level of non-domestic use which the notional tenant would make of the property. This will obviously reflect local circumstances. It requires a change in the normal valuation hypothesis. I commend the proposal to the Committee. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lytton

I apologise to the Chairman of Committees for rising slightly late. There are a number of points that I wish to make about the amendment. I should like to preface my comments by saying that these and other amendments that follow under various subdivisions of Amendment No. 174 are in many respects extremely technical. I am particularly sorry that they should have been tabled, as I understand it, last Thursday, which has given precious little time for the matter to be properly considered by those of the professions who are most keenly involved.

I also find—this is obviously nothing to do with the Minister's choice—that the numbering of the amendments is extremely difficult to follow. I ask whether something could be done about that in the future. I am further concerned that the working party which, I understand, looked into all these matters does not appear to have included at its critical stages any representative of the landed professions. In that, I include my own profession of the RICS and the ISVA. All those people have a valuable contribution to make. I think that the amendments reflect that.

I should like in particular to speak to Amendment No. 174AZK, which is the second amendment listed in this group. As I understand it, it introduces into subsection (1C) two new subparagraphs; namely, subparagraphs (1A) and (1B). It is on those that I invite the Minister's comments. The wording I should like clarified is: would reasonably be attributable to the non-domestic use of property". I should like to ask the Minister to tell me to whom that test of reasonableness is supposed to apply. Is it to be reasonable to the valuation officer or to the occupier?

The second question follows from that. Will the Minister confirm that de facto occupation will apply as the main criterion for determining the division between the non-domestic element and anythings else? Thirdly, can he confirm that the valuation and community charge tribunal will in fact have within its remit the power to determine the test of reasonableness?

The Earl of Caithness

How nice it is to welcome back the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I was disappointed to hear his remarks about the RICS and others not being involved at the crucial time. Obviously I shall check on that. However, when I last investigated the matter I know that they felt that they had been properly considered. But I shall investigate the noble Earl's point.

With regard to the noble Earl's first question, the test of reasonableness will be applied by the valuation officer. As I understand it, it will be subject to the valuation and community charge tribunal. If I am wrong on that point I shall come back to the noble Earl.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 174AZC: Page 165, line 33, at end insert— ("11D.—(1) Section 47 (discretionary relief) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(b) for "regulations under section 57 below or regulations under section 58 below" there shall be substituted "regulations under section 58 below or any provision of or made under Schedule 7A below". (3) In subsection (5) for "57 or 58 below" there shall be substituted "58 below and of any provision of or made under Schedule 7A below". 11E. In section 49 (reduction or remission of liability) in subsection (3) for the words from "and the effect" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted ", the effect of any regulations under section 58 below, and the effect of any provision of or made under Schedule 7A below,"")

The noble Lord said: We come to a set of amendments concerning the new business rate. They concern the transitional arrangements designed to phase in the combined effects of the 1990 revaluation of non-domestic property and the introduction from 1st April next year of a uniform national poundage—the UBR.

A transitional scheme is an essential element in the new business rate system that we are introducing. It is welcomed by the business community, although there are inevitably differences of view as to what the nature of the arrangements should be.

These amendments set out only the basic framework of the proposed scheme. They include new regulation-seeking powers, which we would propose to use at the earliest opportunity to deal with the wide range of cases which are not straightforward.

The primary purpose of the transitional arrangements is to give those businesses facing large increases as a result of the revaluation and the introduction of the uniform rate time to adjust to their new rate bills. To this end, the amendments provide for ceilings on the percentage by which the rate bill for any property may rise from one year to the next for the first five years of the new system. Section 58 of the 1988 Act, which is not to be amended, also enables the Secretary of State to extend transition beyond five years if he considers it appropriate.

For businesses in England and Wales whose rate liability for 1990–91 exceeds the amount payable in 1989–90 by more than the prescribed ceiling, actual increases will be capped at a fixed level. For properties with a rateable value in the new rating list of £15,000 or more in London and £10,000 or more elsewhere, rate rises will be limited to 20 per cent. a year plus inflation, on a compound basis, until the actual amount paid catches up with the full new liability. For properties with a rateable value of between £500 and £14,999 in London and £9,999 elsewhere, the annual increase will be limited to 15 per cent. plus inflation. This lower limit is expected to cover 75 per cent. of all business properties and will be of particular benefit to small businesses, which are generally less well equipped to deal with large increases in outgoings.

In order to balance the revenue lost as a result of the transitional protection for businesses facing increases there are to be corresponding annual limits on reductions in rate bills. These amendments make provision for the calculation of transitional bills for gainers but they include an order-making power to set the actual percentages and these will be around 10 per cent. for properties with a rateable value of £15,000 or more in London and £10,000 or more elsewhere, and 15 per cent. for properties with a rateable value below these thresholds and above £499.

The reason why they are to be set by order and not included in the Bill is that full information from the Inland Revenue about the effects of the change to the new system is not yet available. When it is it will be possible to make a more precise estimate of the cost transition protection and the limits on reductions can then be set as high as possible consistent with the requirement that the transitional arrangements should not as a whole reduce the yield for non-domestic rates. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Lord Ross of Newport

At an enormous gabble, the Minister has proposed amendments extending from page 29 to the top of page 36. It is an enormous amount to try to take in. While the proposals may be basically along the lines that have been outlined in government press releases and earlier statements, I suggest—and the noble Earl is a practising Member—that it is a bit much to take these matters on board at 11 o'clock at night. I believe I am right in saying that this group of amendments was tabled only last Friday.

One trusts that the professional bodies will at least have a few days to assimilate the proposal and to check whether they think that it is on the lines expected. However, I put in one plea. The noble Earl is, I am sure, much better qualified to speak on these subjects than I am. Problems will arise; there is no question about that. On the transitional arrangements—I have to be careful because I may not get it right—if a property which is on the valuation list is occupied on 1st April it will qualify for the five year lead-in period. But if that is not the case and occupation takes place either before or after that date, it does not qualify. There is also the problem of the enterprise zones. We do not know what will happen to them. When the rating relief is eventually lifted the zones will go into the full valuation charge.

Those matters ought to be raised in this Chamber and questions put to the Minister to which responses should be made. Professional bodies are entitled to have adequate responses. To gabble off a reply in five minutes flat is not good enough. I must make that protest on behalf of the people who will be involved. I do not think that they realise what will hit them because, as everyone knows, we have not had a rating revaluation since about 1972. Valuations on shops, in particular in high streets, will be sky high in many parts.

We know to some extent from the CBI the fluctuations that it expects with regard to commercial property. People paying rents have forgotten that the basis of rating is on rents paid and zoning. These factors have gone through the roof in recent years. Trade is down and many offices may stand empty. The question arises of what discretion is given to local authorities before they start imposing rating on empty properties. Six months may be the period when they start to incur rates. Such provision will lead to enormous problems. We have had it before and we are just glibly passing it. It is not good enough. I am sorry. I must make that clear. I hope that it is all right and I hope the Government will listen so that at Report stage we may be able to put down some sensible amendments to which they will give proper credence.

Lord Dean of Beswick

There have been complaints by two speakers about the complexity of this batch of amendments. But the die has been cast. Following the protest made yesterday about the time taken, I believe it was inevitable that the Bill had to be undertaken in this way; otherwise we should have been faced with a sudden death situation at Report stage. It is not the most desirable way, but at least the amendments are on the Marshalled List and available now at Committee stage. That will allow more time for the interested bodies who will be advising Members of the Committee in various parts of the Chamber to put forward proposals for amendments at an appropriate time for Report stage which starts a week on Thursday. As I have said, if the amendments had been tabled then it would have been almost impossible, because of the time factor, for this Chamber to do any kind of justice to them.

What has had to be done tonight is undesirable, but there is some logic in it. It is the lesser of two evils. That is why no one from these Benches has made detailed comments on the amendments. The Committee can take it from me that we shall have a lot to say when we have discussed them in detail with the people who advise us in the broadest sense. I have no doubt that much time will be spent on this group of amendments and the subjects covered by them at Report stage. It is not the ideal way to proceed but in the time capsule in which we are locked because of the House going up in a few weeks' time for the next Session, it is the best that could have been done. It gives us a chance to inject another kiss of life into the procedure at Report stage.

Lord Evans of Claughton

I agree totally with what my noble friend Lord Ross and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, have said. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will support me in saying that we have both received communications from the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce. I suppose other noble Lords have received communications from their chambers of commerce expressing grave concern about the Government's proposals for non-domestic rating. Obviously, Merseyside is concerned because the non-domestic reassessment seemed to suggest that Merseyside, having originally been given the impression that it would benefit from the new rating assessment in the North of England, is now confronted with a transitional period spoken of as being 10 per cent. on a year to year basis against an annual inflation rate of 7 per cent. Who can calculate how long it will take to reassess the whole of the commercial rating system of the country if one is to impose a 10 per cent. annual assessment for the five years 1990 to 1994? If that is assessed against an inflation rate of perhaps 10 per cent., it will take much longer than those five years to bring the systems throughout the country into consistency.

I mention that as only one example of how the whole problem set out in this amendment has been sprung on the Committee at short notice. There are complex calculations such as X/100 x RPI(1)/RPI(2). As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, if the Government give us an assurance that the Committee and the people affected by the proposal will be given time to consider it, I would not want to oppose it now. But if we are told that we must take it or leave it now, I would suggest that we are obliged to oppose it. Nobody has had an opportunity properly to consider these complex new proposals brought in at extremely short notice.

Lord Sefton of Garston

I saw the proposal for the first time today and quite frankly I am still trying to understand the calculations. I am sure that the Minister knows them and will be able to explain them. The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce made representations to the Government about the uniform business rate. Perhaps the Minister can give us the Government's response. Those representations were made some time ago. If he cannot, it means that all this talk about the Government's consultation with the people who will be affected comes to nothing.

I have no sympathy with the Government in regard to getting the Bill through. After all, if it had been worked out properly and reasonably in the first place, perhaps they would not face the difficulty of having to present these amendments to the Committee at this stage. It is not on. The Government say that the phase-in period will be over in five years. That is not my advice. The chamber of commerce, which employs the kind of person of whom we heard before, tells me that this will not start to work out until well after the year 2000, and that the disparities that will be revealed between the North and the South will still be there in the year 2005. If that is not true, let the Minister tell us why it is is not true. If it is true, it shows the hypocrisy of a government who talk about giving a fair break to the northern parts of this land.

They are doing no such thing. Everyone knows that the poll tax—the community charge—will, if it benefits anybody, benefit people in the South. They will be swapping a high rateable value and therefore a high rate for just a personal community charge. That is bad enough. Now it has become worse. Contrary to what the Government have been saying about helping people in places such as Merseyside and the North-East, they are perpetuating an injustice that has existed for many years. It is not good enough.

Does the Minister know anything about the representations that have been made? Has the case been put? I do not see any reason why the Government cannot delay the Bill until everybody has had a decent chance to look at it. I am certain that between now and Report stage there is not enough time for the representations to be made and for the matter to be examined. Although it is late at night, my feeling is that we should at least register a vote against the damn thing.

11.15 p.m.

The Earl of Lytton

With apologies for rising yet again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his customary courtesy of bestowing on me a greater command of this subject matter than is the case. I fear that I am just as bemused as everybody else. I took on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. In view of the lateness of the hour, it is no time to be discussing in detail the many points that I should have liked to raise with the Minister. Having said that, I do not think it would be right if I did not somehow mark the card at this stage with a number of points on which I would hope to have some clarification in due course although I do not wish to ask the Minister to answer in detail or, indeed, at all at this juncture.

For example, in the particular group of amendments under consideration at present there are a series of anomalies concerning the way in which beneficial rateable occupation will be looked at in the context of what is actually apparent and present in a valuation list on a given date. The two are quite clearly not necessarily the same. There is no indication as to how nominal or nil assessments in the valuation list will be dealt with under the phasing provisions. I am entirely unclear as to what is happening there.

In particular I point to the press releases of 27th July of this year which made reference to occupation and not valuation and also the consultation paper where it was suggested that a notional 1973 base value would be included in certain references to phasing. There is no mention of that in these amendments.

The Amendment No. 174 group of amendments—if I may call it that—is full of anomalies. We have anomalies of transition which mean that the right to transition is a personal right where the transition governs increasing liability to non-domestic rates but is a right which accrues to the property and not to the individual occupier in cases where there is a decrease. I am tempted to ask what happens at the Maginot Line somewhere north of Watford when the two jockey for position while all this is going on.

The formulae are needlessly complicated and the letters used in constructing them have different meanings with each passing subsection. I find that a very difficult principle to swallow in the context of any Bill because I feel that legislation which leaves this Chamber in particular should be readily understood by the average man in the street. This grouping falls considerably short of that.

All I can say is that the professions—and I speak for myself in that—must reserve their position here as regards what happens on Report and as regards the other matters which come out of this as the passage of the Bill proceeds.

I should like to briefly mention one or two points in order to short-circuit the matter and I promise that I shall not rise again to challenge any of the other amendments. There are a number of places where the wording is entirely unclear, not particularly in this amendment but in amendments in the same grouping. That must be clarified. We must have clarification as to exactly what the Minister proposes the Secretary of State's powers will be over certain types of property and in particular what types of property he has in mind.

Finally, there seems to be a suggestion later on that a different definition of rateable value will be applicable in certain instances. I should like to know what those instances are and what types of property they are intended to cover.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I hope the impression is not abroad that, because this Front Bench has not passed any detailed comment, therefore we tacitly accept these amendments. We do not. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for giving us something of a dry run this evening on what may well be the salient points to be discussed and amended on Report. As I said, the matter will have to be looked at in great detail. I envisage that at the appropriate time on Report there will be extensive debates on these important issues when we will attempt to deal with them. On that basis there is nothing more I can say tonight, but the silence does not on this occasion mean tacit acceptance of the amendments.

Lord Hesketh

I am sure that the silence does not mean tacit acceptance, but it is golden. I think it is fair to say there is an interesting dilemma here which has been raised by all Members of the Committee who have spoken: that is, those who are losers are upset and those who are winners do not feel they have had a good enough deal. There is an interesting reverse, with those paying the community charge in the South having to assist the boroughs that are less well off in the inner cities, as compared with the situation of the UBR being reduced in the North and rising in the South overall.

I am grateful that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, insisted that he was flagging up his numerous and important points to be attended to at a later stage rather than at this hour from the Dispatch Box. For that I am grateful.

The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, inquired about the department's response to the Merseyside chamber of commerce. It will come as no surprise to anyone with an interest in the North-West that the Merseyside chamber of commerce, like many other similar bodies, is in favour of a premium on poundage in order to get the reductions straight into the system in the North. I understand that.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, is aware that extensive consultations took place between the department and various representative bodies. So numerous were the consultations that we issued no fewer than 14 consultation documents. As proof of that I can only say that, having dealt with the Statement for this Chamber in February, the changes in the figures that I present before the Committee tonight reveal that there has been considerable change. I hope that with those words the Committee will accept the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZD: Page 166, line 42, at end insert— ("15A. In section 55 (alteration of lists) in subsection (7) (b) the words "at a prescribed rate" shall be omitted.").

The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 174AZX, 174AZY and 174ZDA.

It is intended that interest should be payable where sums are refundable to the ratepayer following the alteration of a rating list. This is provided for under Section 55 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and is intended to compensate ratepayers for losing the benefit of the withholding provisions in Section 8 of the General Rate Act 1967. However, we have proposed that interest should also be payable on any amounts paid in excess of liability and where that reduction was not made as a result of an alteration to the list. The purpose of amending Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act is to cater for this.

Turning to the second of the amendments, the 1988 Act as it stands enables the Secretary of State to prescribe the rate of interest to be applied to such repayments. The purpose of the amendments is to permit the Secretary of State to prescribe that the rate of interest should be determined in a particular manner. This would allow the interest rate to be linked, for instance, to bank base rate and would avoid the need for a fresh statutory instrument each time interest rates changed. This will also apply to the new power under Schedule 9, and also where interest is payable by a charging authority where it has temporarily used balances in the collection fund for its own purposes and where it is late in paying precepts under Sections 98 and 99. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZH: Page 166, line 42, at end insert— ("15AAB. The following section shall be substituted for section 57 (special provision for 1990–95)—

"Special provision for 1990–95.

57. Schedule 7A below (which contains special provisions for 1990–95 shall have effect."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZE: Page 166, line 42, at end insert— ("15AB. The following section shall be substituted for section 59—

"Contributions in aid.

59. Where a contribution in aid of non-domestic rating is made in respect of a Crown hereditament, the contribution shall be paid to the Secretary of State.").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 174AZF, 174AZJ and 174AZU.

This group of amendments are all concerned with the position of Crown property in relation to non-domestic rating. Though the Crown is of course exempt from all taxes, it is well-established practice for it to continue to pay contributions equivalent to what would otherwise be the rates liability on each property. The Government are committed to maintaining these contributions, which will be paid into the national non-domestic rating pool. As it stands, the Act provides that in general such contributions will be paid to the individual charging authorities in whose area the property is situated. The intention is that the charging authority should then pay the money into the pool. Given that most payments originate centrally from the Treasurer's rating of government property department, this route of payments seems unnecessarily circular. Instead, Amendments Nos. 174AZE and 174AZU provide for the payments to be made directly into the NNDR pool.

The existing definition of Crown property has been built up as a matter of practice. Over the years the scope of the definition has tended to widen and it is not always clear that Crown exemption should properly embrace all the property that it actually does. The Committee will be aware that Section 64 (6) of the 1988 Act already withdraws the exemption in certain cases. These amendments give the Secretary of State the further power to withdraw the exemption in other cases where he thinks fit. In such cases the property will be entered on a non-domestic rating list and become liable to rate.

These amendments simplify the system for collecting Crown contributions in lieu of rates. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZF: Page 166, line 42, at end insert— ("15AC. In section 64 (hereditaments) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (7)— (7A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (6) above shall also apply in relation to any hereditament of a prescribed class. (7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A) above a class may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit. (7C) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (7B) above, a class may be prescribed by reference to one or more of the following factors—

1. (a) the physical characteristics of hereditaments;
2. (b) the fact that hereditaments are unoccupied or are occupied for prescribed purposes or by persons of prescribed descriptions.

(7D) A hereditament is a Crown hereditament if—

1. (a) it is occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes,
2. (b) though unoccupied, it appears that it will be occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes when next in occupation, or
3. (c) it is provided and maintained by an authority mentioned in subsection (7) above for purposes connected with the administration of justice, police purposes or other Crown purposes."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZG: Page 166, line 42, at end insert— ("15B. In section 65 (owners and occupiers) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (8)— (8A) In a case where—

1. (a) land consisting of a hereditament is used (permanently or temporarily) for the exhibition of advertisements or for the erection of a structure used for the exhibition of advertisements,
2. (b) section 64(2) above does not apply, and
3. (c) apart from this subsection, the hereditament is not occupied,

the hereditament shall be treated as occupied by the person permitting it to be so used or, if that person cannot be ascertained, its owner."").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, with leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 174AZN, 174AZP and 174AZR. The Government propose that under the new rating system the arrangements for the rating of land used for advertising should replicate broadly those in Section 28 of the General Rate Act 1967. The effect of Amendment No. 174ZG is simply to close a loophole in the 1988 Act to bring the new system into line with existing provisions.

Amendments Nos. 174AZN, 174AZP and 174AZR are needed to ensure that the method of valuing leisure caravan parks for rating purposes operates as intended. The present position as regards the rating of caravan sites is set out in the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976, which provides for the whole site, caravans and pitches as well as site facilities such as shower blocks or a site shop to be included in one rateable value assessment. This is a sensible way to deal with what would otherwise be a large number of separate units.

Following discussions with the appropriate bodies representing the caravan industry, we have decided to replicate these provisions using regulation-making powers in Section 64(3) of the 1988 Act. These amendments are technical changes to provide for reassessment when the size of the site changes or there is a change in its facilities. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZJ: Page 166, line 43, leave out ("The following subsection shall be inserted after section 67") and insert— ("section 67 (interpretation etc.) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (5) after "property on a particular day," there shall be inserted "or is a Crown hereditament on a particular day,". (3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 174AZJA: Page 166, line 51, leave out ("In paragraph 9 of Schedule 5") and insert— (".—(1) Schedule 5 (exemptions) shall be amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 9").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 174AZJB. We are now moving briefly away from property, and also away from many amendments, to consider two very simple amendments. Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in transport matters. This amendment is concerned with the rating of bridges and tunnels which carry roads over or under rivers and estuaries.

As I understand the position, public highways cannot be rated because the rights of public access exhaust all possible rental value of the land used as a highway. Thus crossings such as the Rotherhithe tunnel and the road bridges over the Thames are not rateable. However, under case law, if a toll is charged, but for the franchise, no one would have the right of passage if the structure is rateable.

However, for many years specific exemptions from rating have been granted by Parliament in local and private Acts in respect of toll bridges and tunnels. In the case of the Swinford toll bridge in Oxfordshire an exemption was granted as early as 1767. The Humber bridge and the Dartford tunnel are more recent examples of exemption from rates by provisions in legislation authorising their construction. Other legislation in connection with crossings where a toll is not charged also contains specific exemptions from rates. Such exemptions were probably sought for the avoidance of doubt that, when a new crossing was constructed and there were new rights of public access, the crossing was not rateable.

However, I understand there are a small number of toll bridges which are currently assessed for rates. These include the Clifton suspension bridge and the Middlesbrough and Newport transporter bridges. It seems, however, that there is no consistency in the values which have been attached to them. I am told that the Newport bridge has a rateable value of £3 while the Clifton suspension bridge is valued at £5,000. I am not well versed in the principles of valuation for rating so I cannot comment on these apparent discrepancies, but it seems to me anomalous that they should be rated when so many other major crossings have benefited from an exemption.

As I understand it, Section 67(12) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 extinguishes all exemptions from rates which have been granted in private or local Acts but these may be reinstated by regulations under paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 to the Act. I consider that it would be equitable and consistent to exempt all bridge and tunnel crossings from rates. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 174AZJB. Amendment No. 174AZJA is merely a textual amendment to accommodate it in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

I am very happy that my noble friend put down this amendment and so brought the anomalies which he mentioned to the attention of the Committee. I am also grateful to him for the stamina which he has shown by staying to this late hour in order to put his excellent case.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had intended to exercise his powers under paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in order to preserve the exemption from rates of bridges and tunnels which are currently exempt under private or local Acts. My noble friend's amendment would obviate the need for such regulations and the need to make special provision to exempt similar structures in any future private or local legislation. It would also correct anomalies in the present system, as he has explained. For those reasons, I am happy to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 174AZJB: Page 167, line 4, at end insert— ("(3) After paragraph 18 there shall be inserted—

"Road crossings over watercourses etc.

18A.—(1) A hereditament which is occupied (as mentioned in section 65 of this Act) is exempt to the extent that it consists of, or of any of the appurtenances of, a fixed road crossing over an estuary, river or other watercourse.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a fixed road crossing means a bridge, viaduct, tunnel or other construction providing a means for road vehicles or pedestrians or both to cross the estuary, river or other watercourse concerned.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above—

1. (a) a bridge may be a fixed road crossing notwithstanding that it is designed so that part of it can be swung, raised or otherwise moved in order to facilitate passage across, above or below it; but
2. (b) the expression "bridge" does not include a floating bridge, that is to say, a ferry operating between fixed chains.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to the appurtenances of a fixed road crossing is a reference to—

1. (a) the carriageway and any footway thereof;
2. (b) any building, other than office buildings, used in connection with the crossing; and
3. (c) any machinery, apparatus or works used in connection with the crossing or with any of the items mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZK: Page 167, line 5, at end insert— ("(1A) In paragraph 1 the words ", and parts of them," shall be omitted. (1B) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (1) after "non-domestic hereditament" there shall be inserted "none of which consists of domestic property and none of which is exempt from local non-domestic rating". (1C) In paragraph 2, the following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)— (1A) The rateable value of a composite hereditament none of which is exempt from local non-domestic rating shall be taken to be an amount equal to the rent which, assuming such a letting of the hereditament as is required to be assumed for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, would reasonably be attributable to the non-domestic use of property. (1B) The rateable value of a non-domestic hereditament which is partially exempt from local non-domestic rating shall be taken to be an amount equal to the rent which, assuming such a letting of the hereditament as is required to be assumed for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, would, as regards the part of the hereditament which is not exempt from local non-domestic rating, be reasonably attributable to the non-domestic use of property.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZL: Page 167, line 9, at end insert— ("(2A) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (8) for "description" there shall be substituted "class". (2B) In paragraph 2, the following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (10)— (11) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (8) above a class may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit. (12) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (11) above, a class may be prescribed by reference to one or more of the following factors—

1. (a) the physical characteristics of hereditaments;
2. (b) the fact that hereditaments are unoccupied or are occupied for prescribed purposes or by persons of prescribed descriptions."")

(13) In this paragraph references to the non-domestic use of property are references to use otherwise than in such a manner as to constitute the property domestic property."").

The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 174AZQ. The amendments extend the Secretary of State's power to prescribe certain rules of valuation for particular types of property. At present, under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 6 to the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe valuation assumptions and rules for hereditaments of specified description. The description may include the physical characteristics of the property, for example, a school, but it does not extend to type of occupier of the property.

To permit the Secretary of State to prescribe certain valuation assumptions under the 1988 Act, he needs to have the power to prescribe the type of occupier who will attract the special valuation rules. It is the intention to use the new power in relation to the prescription of the decapitalisation rate to be used in rating valuation made by reference to the notional costs of construction. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 25th July, we shall continue the existing practice of prescribing a lower decapitalisation rate for state run, public and independent schools and colleges. However, we see no reason to extend this to commercially run schools and colleges. The amendment is required to allow regulations to distinguish between institutions run for profit and those provided by non-profit making bodies.

Amendment No. 174AZL includes a consequential provision in relation to the valuation of composite hereditaments which the Committee has already considered. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 174AZM, 174AZN, 174AZP, 174AZQ, 174AZR and 174AZS: Page 167, line 9, at end insert— ("(2AA) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (9) after "(1)" there shall be inserted ", (1A) or (1B)". Page 167, line 10, leave out first ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs"). Page 167, line 31, at end insert— ("2B.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

1. (a) the rateable value of a hereditament consisting of an area of a caravan site is determined with a view to making an alteration to a list which has been compiled (whether or not it is still in force),
2. (b) the area is treated as one hereditament by virtue of regulations under section 64(3)(b),
3. (c) immediately before the day the alteration is entered in the list or (if the alteration is made in pursuance of a proposal) the day the proposal is made, the list includes a hereditament consisting of an area of the caravan site treated as one hereditament by virtue of such regulations, and
4. (d) the area mentioned in paragraph (b) above and the area mentioned in paragraph (c) above are wholly or partly the same.

(2) In relation to a caravan pitch which is included both in the area mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above and in the area mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above, sub-paragraph (3) below rather than paragraph 2(6) above shall apply as respects the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below. (3) The matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below shall be taken to be as they were assumed to be for the purposes of determining the rateable value of the hereditament mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above when that rateable value was last determined. (4) The matters are—

1. (a) the nature of the caravan on the pitch, and
2. (b) the physical state of that caravan.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph— caravan" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and caravan site" means any land in respect of which a site licence is required under Part I of that Act, or would be so required if paragraph 4 and paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Act (exemption of certain land occupied and supervised by organisations concerned with recreational activities and of land occupied by local authorities) were omitted."). Page 167, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert— ("(4) In paragraph 3(1)—

1. (a) for "description" there shall be substituted "class", and
2. (b) for "paragraph 2" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 2 and 2A".

(5) In paragraph 3(2) for "paragraph 2" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 2 and 2A". (6) In paragraph 3, the following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (2)— (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above a class may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit. (4) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (3) above, a class may be prescribed by reference to one or more of the following factors—

1. (a) the physical characteristics of hereditaments;
2. (b) the fact that hereditaments are unoccupied or are occupied for prescribed purposes or by persons of prescribed descriptions." ").

Page 167, line 33, leave out ("and 2A" ") and insert ("to 2B" "). Page 167, line 33, at end insert— ("(5) Paragraph 4 shall be omitted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZT: Page 167, line 34, leave out ("In paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 7") and insert— ("(1) Schedule 7 (multipliers) shall be amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 9(4) (certain orders ineffective unless in force before 1 January) for "January" there shall be substituted "March". (3) In paragraph 10(1)").

The noble Earl said: As the Committee is aware, the 1988 Act provides that, as a "special" authority, the City of London may continue to set its own local non-domestic rate after 1990. That status reflects the fact that the City of London has a very low resident population base relative to its daytime commuter population and therefore requires a source of locally raised revenue additional to the community charge to fund local expenditure.

The amount of that local rate will substantially, if not wholly, be offset by reduced contributions from the City into the pool. The level of that offset will be determined by an order made under part 2 of Schedule 7 to the Act; that cannot however be determined until the level of the business rate multiplier is set in January 1990. As the Act stands, the City multiplier order must be made before January. This amendment sets the last date for making the order back to 1st March, although in practice we are likely to make it rather earlier. Certainly it will be made in good time for the City to set its rate for 1990. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 174AZU and 174AZV: Page 167, line 36, at end insert— ("19A. In Schedule 8 (non-domestic rating: pooling) in Part I, in paragraph 2 (non-domestic rating accounts: credits and debits) in sub-paragraph (1) (b) for "regulations made under section 59 (2)" there shall be substituted "section 59"."). Page 167, line 36, at end insert— ("19AA. The following Schedule shall be inserted after Schedule 7—

"SCHEDULE 7A

NON-DOMESTIC RATING: 1990–95

Definitions

1.—(1) The transitional period is the period consisting of the financial years beginning in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.

(2) A transitional day is a day falling in the transitional period.

2.—(1) As regards a transitional day a hereditament is a defined hereditament if the first and second conditions are fulfilled; but this is subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) below.

(2) The first condition is that the hereditament is shown for 31 March 1990 in a valuation list maintained under Part V of the 1967 Act.

(3) The second condition is that the hereditament is shown in a local non-domestic rating list, and a rateable value is shown in the list for the hereditament, for—

1. (a) 1 April 1990,
2. (b) the transitional day (if different from 1 April 1990), and
3. (c) each day (if any) falling after 1 April 1990 and before the transitional day.

(4) If the hereditament is not a right falling within section 64 (2) above, the hereditament is not a defined hereditament as regards the transitional day unless the rateable value shown for the hereditament in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April is £500 or more.

(5) If the hereditament is one falling within sub-paragraph (8) below, the hereditament is not a defined hereditament as regards the transitional day unless a person who is a qualifying person in relation to the hereditament as regards that day is also a person to whom sub-paragraph (6) or (7) below applies.

(6) This sub-paragraph applies to a person if—

1. (a) he occupied all or part of the hereditament on 31 March 1990, and
2. (b) he has been a qualifying person in relation to the hereditament as regards each day (if any) falling after 31 March 1990 and before the transitional day.

(7) This sub-paragraph applies to a person if—

1. (a) he was the owner of the whole of the hereditament on 31 March 1990;
2. (b) none of the hereditament was occupied on 31 March 1990,
3. (c) he occupied all or part of the hereditament on at least one day in the period beginning with 1st April 1988 and ending with 30th March 1990, and
4. (d) he has been a qualifying person in relation to the hereditament as regards each day which falls before the transitional day and falls after the last (or only) day in the period mentioned in paragraph (c) above on which he occupied all or part of the hereditament.

(8) A hereditament falls within this sub-paragraph if, assuming it to be a defined hereditament as regards 1 April 1990, paragraph 9 below would apply to the hereditament for the day by virtue of paragraph 7 below.

(9) For the purposes of this paragraph a person is a qualifying person in relation to a hereditament as regards a day if—

1. (a) he occupies all or part of the hereditament on that day, or
2. (b) where none of the hereditament is occupied on that day, he is the owner of the whole of the hereditament on that day.

3.—(1) The notional chargeable amount for a hereditament for each day in a relevant year shall be found by applying the formula—

AxB/C

(2) A is the rateable value shown for the hereditament for 1st April 1990 in the local non-domestic rating list.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, B is the non-domestic rating multiplier for the relevant year concerned.

(4) Where the hereditament is situated in the area of a special authority, B is the authority's non-domestic rating multiplier for the relevant year concerned.

(5) C is the number of days in the relevant year concerned.

(6) Relevant years are financial years falling in the transitional period.

4.—(1) The base liability for a hereditament for each day in the financial year beginning in 1990 shall be found by applying the formula—

AxB/C

(2) A is the rateable value of the hereditament, as determined under paragraph 6 below.

(3) B is the general rate poundage effective for 31st March 1990 for the rating area (within the meaning of the 1967 Act) in which the hereditament is situated.

(4) C is the number of days in the financial year beginning in 1989.

(5) The base liability for a hereditament for each day in a relevant year (the year concerned) other than the financial year beginning in 1990 shall be found by applying the formula—

BL x AF

(6) Relevant years are financial years falling in the transitional period.

(7) BL is the base liability for the hereditament for each day in the financial year immediately preceding the year concerned.

(8) AF is the appropriate fraction for the hereditament for each day in the financial year immediately preceding the year concerned.

5.—(1) The appropriate fraction for a hereditament for each day in a relevant year shall be found by applying the formula—

X/100 x RPI(1)/RPI(2).

(2) X is 120 if—

1. (a) the hereditament is situated in Greater London and the rateable value shown for it in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April 1990 is £15,000 or more, or
2. (b) it is situated outside Greater London and the rateable value shown for it in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April 1990 is£10,000 or more.

(3) X is 115 if—

1. (a) the hereditament is situated in Greater London and the rateable value shown for it in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April 1990 is less than £15,000, or
2. (b) it is situated outside Greater London and the rateable value shown for it in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April 1990 is less than £10,000.

(4) RPI(l) is the retail prices index for September of the financial year preceding the relevant year concerned.

(5) RPI(2) is the retail prices index for September of the financial year which precedes that preceding the relevant year concerned.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, as regards any case of a prescribed description, the appropriate fraction for a hereditament for each day in any prescribed relevant year shall be such as is specified in the order or determined in accordance with prescribed rules; and as regards such a case sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) above shall not apply in relation to a day in such a year.

(7) In deciding whether to make, and in making, an order under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall have regard to the object of securing (so far as practicable) that the aggregate amount payable to him and all charging authorities by way of non-domestic rates as regards a relevant year is the same as it would in his opinion be likely to be apart from this Schedule.

(8) Relevant years are financial years falling in the transitional period.

6.—(1) This paragraph has effect to determine A in relation to a hereditament for the purposes of paragraph 4 above.

(2) In a case where a rateable value is shown for the hereditament for 15 February 1989 in the old valuation list, A is the value so shown; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3) below.

(3) If—

1. (a) a relevant proposal is (or relevant proposals are) made to alter the rateable value shown for the hereditament in that list, and
2. (b) as a result of any such proposal a rateable value is shown for the hereditament in that list for a relevant day,

A is the rateable value shown in that list for the hereditament for the last (or only) relevant day for which a rateable value is shown as a result of any such proposal.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) above a relevant proposal is a proposal—

1. (a) made by a valuation officer at any time, or
2. (b) made by a person other than a valuation officer, and received by a valuation officer, before 15 February 1989.

(5) In a case where a rateable value is not shown for the hereditament for 15 February 1989 in the old valuation list, A is the rateable value shown in that list for the hereditament for the first relevant day for which a rateable value is shown; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (6) below.

(6) If—

1. (a) a relevant proposal is (or relevant proposals are) made to alter the rateable value shown for the hereditament in that list, and
2. (b) as a result of any such proposal a rateable value is shown for the hereditament in that list for a relevant day,

A is the rateable value shown in that list for the hereditament for the last (or only) relevant day for which a rateable value is shown as a result of any such proposal.

(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6) above a relevant proposal is a proposal made by a valuation officer at any time.

(8) In the case of a hereditament—

1. (a) occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes in the period beginning with 15 February 1989 and ending with 31 March 1990, and
2. (b) in respect of which a contribution is made by the Crown in aid of rates for that period,

references in sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) above to rateable value are to value representing rateable value (which is required to be shown by section 37 of the 1967 Act).

(9) For the purposes of this paragraph a relevant day is a day falling after 15 February 1989 and before 1 April 1990.

(10) For the purposes of this paragraph the old valuation list is the valuation list, maintained under Part V of the 1967 Act, in which the hereditament is shown for 31 March 1990.

Chargeable amounts

7.—(1) Paragraph 9 below applies to a hereditament for a transitional day (the day concerned) if—

1. (a) as regards the hereditament the day concerned is a charageable day for which a chargeable amount falls to be determined under section 43 above,
2. (b) as regards the day concerned the hereditament is a defined hereditament,
3. (c) NCA exceeds BL,
4. (d) NCA exceeds (BLAxAF), and
5. (e) in a case where the day concerned is not 1 April 1990, paragraph 9 below applies to the hereditament for each transitional day preceding the day concerned, and it does so by virtue of this paragraph.

(2) In a case where the hereditament is situated in the area of a special authority, the reference to (BLxAF) is a reference to it adjusted by finding the appropriate amount and—

1. (a) if the appropriate amount is positive, adding it to (BL x AF), or
2. (b) if the appropriate amount is negative, subtracting the equivalent positive amount from (BLAxAF).

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above the appropriate amount is the amount found by applying the formula—

Dx(E-F)/G

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph—

1. (a) NCA is the notional chargeable amount for the hereditament for the day concerned,
2. (b) BL is the base liability for the hereditament for the day concerned,
282
3. (c) AF is the appropriate fraction for the hereditament for the day concerned,
4. (d) D is the rateable value shown for the hereditament in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April 1990,
5. (e) E is the non-domestic rating multiplier of the special authority concerned for the financial year in which the day concerned falls,
6. (f) F is the non-domestic rating multiplier for the financial year in which the day concerned falls, and
7. (g) G is the number of days in the financial year in which the day concerned falls.

8.—(1) Paragraph 9 below applies to a hereditament for a transitional day (the day concerned) if—

1. (a) as regards the hereditament the day concerned is a chargeable day for which a chargeable amount falls to be determined under section 43 above,
2. (b) as regards the day concerned the hereditament is a defined hereditament,
3. (c) NCA is less than BL,
4. (d) NCA is less than (BLxAF), and
5. (e) in a case where the day concerned is not 1 April 1990, paragraph 9 below applies to the hereditament for each transitional day preceding the day concerned, and it does so by virtue of this paragraph.

(2) In a case where the hereditament is situated in the area of a special authority, the reference to (BLxAF) is a reference to it adjusted by finding the appropriate amount and—

1. (a) if the appropriate amount is positive, adding it to (BLxAF), or
2. (b) if the appropriate amount is negative, subtracting the equivalent positive amount from (BL x AF).

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above the appropriate amount is the amount found by applying the formula—

Dx(E-F)/G

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph—

1. (a) NCA is the notional chargeable amount for the hereditament for the day concerned,
2. (b) BL is the base liability for the hereditament for the day concerned,
3. (c) AF is the appropriate fraction for the hereditament for the day concerned,
4. (d) D is the rateable value shown for the hereditament in the local non-domestic rating list for 1 April 1990,
5. (e) E is the non-domestic rating multiplier of the special authority concerned for the financial year in which the day concerned falls,
6. (f) F is the non-domestic rating multiplier for the financial year in which the day concerned falls, and
7. (g) G is the number of days in the financial year in which the day concerned falls.

9.—(1) In a case where this paragraph applies, for the purpose of ascertaining the chargeable amount for the day concerned under section 43 above that section shall have effect subject to the following amendments.

(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (4) and (5)—

"(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the chargeable amount for a chargeable day shall be calculated by finding the amount represented by (BLAxAF).

(5) Where subsection (6) below applies the chargeable amount for a chargeable day shall be calculated by—

1. (a) finding the amount represented by (BLAxAF), and
2. (b) dividing that amount by 5."

(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)—

"(6A) In a case where the hereditament is situated in the area of a special authority, a reference to (BLxAF) is a reference to it adjusted by finding the appropriate amount and—

1. (a) if the appropriate amount is positive, adding it to (BLAxAF), or
283
2. (b) if the appropriate amount is negative, subtracting the equivalent positive amount from (BLxAF).

(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above the appropriate amount is the amount found by applying the formula—

Dx(E-F)/G

(4) For the purposes of section 43 above as amended by this paragraph BL, AF, D, E, F and G shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 8 above.

Regulations

10.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations containing rules about the determination under section 45 or 54 above of a chargeable amount for a transitional day.

(2) The rules may make provision which he considers to be equivalent to that made by or under paragraphs 1 to 9 above, subject to any modifications he thinks fit.

11.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations containing rules supplementing or modifying or excluding, for any case he considers appropriate and to such extent as he considers appropriate, any relevant provision.

(2) For the purpose of the determination under section 43, 45 or 54 above of a chargeable amount for a transitional day, the Secretary of State may make regulations applying any relevant provision (subject to any modifications he thinks fit) to any case—

1. (a) where he considers it appropriate to do so, and
2. (b) where the relevant provision would not (whether by virtue of regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above or otherwise) apply apart from the regulations under this sub-paragraph.

(3) A relevant provision made by or under paragraphs 1 to 9 above or by regulations under paragraph 10 above.

12. Without prejudice to the generality of section 143(1) and (2) above and paragraphs 10 and 11 above, regulations under those paragraphs may include provision—

1. (a) imposing duties and conferring powers on valuation officers (whether as regards determinations, certificates or otherwise) in relation to the ascertainment of rateable values;
2. (b) as to appeals relating to things done or not done by such officers."").
3. The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 174AZU and 174AZV. They have both been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174AZW: Page 168, line 7, leave out paragraphs 21 and 22 and insert— ("21.—(1) In Schedule 8 (non-domestic rating: pooling) Part III (Distribution) shall be amended as follows. (2) The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 9(6)— (6) As regards a particular financial year the relevant population of a charging authority is the relevant population, calculated under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12A below, of the area of the authority for the year. (3) Paragraph 9(7) shall be omitted. (4) In paragraph 11(1) for the words from "As soon as" to "calculate how much of it" there shall be substituted "If the revenue support grant report for a chargeable financial year is approved by resolution of the House of Commons, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the report is approved the Secretary of State shall calculate how much of the distributable amount for the year". (5) Paragraph 11(3) shall be omitted. (6) In paragraph 12(1) for the words from "If the revenue" to "is approved" (in the second place where those words occur) there shall be substituted "As soon as is reasonably practicable after the county and district shares for a chargeable financial year have been calculated under paragraph 11 above". (7) The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 12(5)— (5) As regards a particular financial year the relevant population of a council is the relevant population, calculated under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12A below, of the area of the council for the year. (8) Paragraph 12(6) shall be omitted.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 174AZW and, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 174ZBA, 174ZCC, 174ZDD, 174ZDF, 174ZDG and 174ZDL. This group of amendments is designed to provide a suitable mechanism for defining the population figures which are used for various purposes in the local government finance system. They provide for the Secretary of State to make a report setting out rules for calculating the relevant population of charging authorities. He will also make regulations containing rules about how authorities should calculate the relevant population of parts of their areas, such as parishes. The resulting population figures will be used in sharing precepts, calculating grant and distributing the proceeds of the national non-domestic rate.

On 25th July in another place in answer to a Question it was announced that the Government had decided to base relevant population on data supplied from community charge registers. This decision was taken in the light of the very strong views expressed by the local authority associations that the registers should be used rather than any other data source.

What we have to decide now, of course, is the precise detail of the rules to go in the report. The department's officials had useful discussions with representatives of the local authority associations earlier this week as to how we might calculate relevant population in practice. The rules which will be eventually embodied in the report will be put before another place for its approval.

The amendment makes separate provision for Wales in paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A. The calculation of relevant population for precepting purposes will be undertaken by charging authorities in accordance with rules to be prescribed in regulations. This is necessary because in Wales the collection fund will operate purely as between tiers of local authority for the collection and disbursement of community charge payments. There is no provision for the Secretary of State to be involved. It is therefore appropriate that the calculation of the tax base for precepting purposes should be a matter for charging and precepting authorities rather than for the Secretary of State.

The decision to use community charge registers as the basis for the calculation of relevant population has been widely welcomed and I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Sefton of Garston

I am sorry, I heard Amendment No. 174AZU mentioned, then thought I heard Amendment No. 174W mentioned. Regardless of the list that is furnished to the parties, I understand that each amendment has to be read out individually before it is passed. When was Amendment No. 174AZV taken?

The Earl of Caithness

Amendment No. 174AZU, which has been agreed by the Committee, was consequential upon Amendment No. 174AZE. Amendment No. 174AZV was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hesketh and was consequential upon Amendment No. 174AZC.

Lord Sefton of Garston

I am not sure that that is in accordance with the rules of the House. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to tell us. I understand that regardless of arrangements between the parties, the rules are that the amendments should be read out and discussed individually, not as consequential, nor out of turn. I am not privy to any arrangements that have been made. All I know is that the Marshalled List shows Amendments Nos. 174AZU and 174AZV. It does not go on to Amendment No. 174AZW.

The Earl of Caithness

It is perfectly in order for any amendment to be taken with other amendments and discussed with them. However, one can move only the amendment that is the basis for that discussion. It is quite normal to add in other amendments. Then, in turn, the Chairman will call those amendments and, if further discussion is warranted, it can take place. The Chairman called both Amendments Nos. 174AZU and 174AZV. When no one took up the offer which the Chairman had made in accordance with the usual practice, they were agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 174AZW agreed to.

11.45 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 174AZXand 174AZY: Page 168, line 26, at end insert— ("22A.—(1) In Schedule 9 (administration) in paragraph 2 (collection and recovery) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (2)— (2A) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that where —

1. (a) an amount paid by the ratepayer in excess of his liability falls to be repaid or credited, and
2. (b) the circumstances are such as may be prescribed,

an additional amount by way of interest shall be paid or credited." "). Page 168, line 27, leave out ("(administration)").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 174AZX and 174AZY. They have both been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 174ZA: Page 171, line 6, leave out ("In section 68(2)") and insert ("Section 68 (precepts to be issued) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2)").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 174ZB and 174ZD. These amendments deal with the way in which, under the new system of local government finance, precepting authorities are to calculate their precepts and charging authorities are to calculate their own demands for revenues from the Collection Fund. They amend and replace provisions already in Schedule 10, paragraphs 56 and 58, of the Bill, which themselves amend Sections 68 and 95 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

These amendments are entirely technical. They would ensure that authorities, when acting under Sections 68 and 95, took account not only of things which are to be charged to a revenue account for the year concerned, together with an allowance for contingencies and provision for certain expenditure in future years, but also of other items necessary to make a balanced budget. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZB: page 171, line 7, at end insert— ("(3) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsections— ("(4) The items are—

1. (a) the expenditure the authority estimates it will incur in the year in performing its functions in the year and will charge to a revenue account for the year;
2. (b) such allowance as the authority estimates will be appropriate for contingencies in relation to expenditure to be charged to a revenue account for the year;
3. (c) the financial reserves which the authority estimates it will be appropriate to raise in the year for meeting the estimated expenditure referred to in subsection (4A) below; and
4. (d) such financial reserves as are sufficient to meet so much of the amount estimated by the authority to be a revenue account deficit for any earlier financial year as has not already been provided for.

(4A) The estimated expenditure referred to in subsection (4)(c) above is—

1. (a) that which the authority estimates that, in the financial year following the year in question, it will incur, will charge to a revenue account and will have to defray before sums yielded by way of precepts are sufficiently available; and
2. (b) that which the authority estimates it will incur in the financial year referred to in paragraph (a) above or any subsequent financial year in performing its functions and which will be charged to a revenue account for that or any other year.

(4B) References in subsections (4) and (4A) above to expenditure incurred by the authority shall be construed in accordance with section 39(3) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZBA: Page 171, line 7, at end insert— ("27A. In section 69 (precepted authorities) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (7)— (7) As regards precepts for a particular financial year the relevant population of the area of an English charging authority is the relevant population, calculated under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12A below, of the area for the year. (7A) As regards precepts for a particular financial year the relevant population of the area of a Welsh charging authority is the relevant population, calculated under paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A below, of the area for the year (7B) As regards precepts for a particular financial year the relevant population of part of the area of a charging authority is the relevant population, calculated under paragraph 6 of Schedule 12A below, of the part for the year." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZCB: Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28A.—(1) Section 73 (information) shall be amended as follows. (2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)— (2A) Where regulations under Schedule 2 or 9 below contain provision about the contents or form of a notice to be served by a charging authority, they may also require any appropriate precepting authority to supply the charging authority with prescribed information if the Secretary of State considers it to be information the charging authority needs to ensure that the provision is met. (3) In subsection (3) after "(2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 174ZCD and 174ZCE. These amendments provide that the Secretary of State may require precepting authorities and other bodies to supply information to charging authorities. Amendment No. 174ZCB provides that precepting authorities can be required by regulation to provide charging authorities with the information which they will need in order to fulfil their duty to prepare and issue community charge and demand notices in a form and containing matters to be prescribed.

Amendments Nos. 174ZCD and 174ZCE provide that levying and special levying bodies can be required by regulations to provide charging authorities with the information which the Secretary of State considers charging authorities will need in order to fulfil their duty to supply prescribed information to charge and ratepayers with their demand notices. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 174ZCC and 174ZCD: Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28B. In section 74 (levies) in subsection (5)(a) after "72 above" there shall be inserted "or in Schedule 12A below or in regulations under section 73(1) above or in regulations under Schedule 12A below"."). Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28C. The following section shall be inserted after section 74—

"Levies: information.

74A.—(1) Where regulations under Schedule 2 or 9 below impose a duty on a charging authority to supply information to any person, they may also require any appropriate levying body to supply the charging authority with prescribed information if the Secretary of State considers it to be information the charging authority needs in order to fulfil its duty.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a body is an appropriate levying body in relation to a charging authority if—

1. (a) it has power to issue a levy to the charging authority, or
2. (b) it has power to issue a levy to a county council which has power to issue a precept to the charging authority." ").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 174ZCC and 174ZCD en bloc. They have both been spoken to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 174ZCA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 174CAA: Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28D.—(1) Section 75 (special levies) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "appropriate Minister". (3) In subsection (7)(a)—

1. (a) after "72 above" there shall be inserted "or in Schedule 12A below or in regulations under section 73(1) above or in regulations under Schedule 12A below", and
2. (b) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "appropriate Minister".

(4) At the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection— (8) In this section "the appropriate Minister" has the same meaning as in section 118 below." ").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 174CAA and 174ZDC deal with special levying bodies. The purpose of the amendments is to bring all internal drainage boards within the special levying body provisions of Sections 75 and 118 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The abolition of domestic rates and exclusion of certain properties from the new local rating lists will present difficulties for the levying of direct rates. It is therefore proposed that most of those internal drainage boards which currently levy rates should become special levying bodies with powers to levy on the local authority for the same proportion of the board's expenditure as was met by income from the domestic rate and non-domestic sectors in 1988–90.

The principle of such bodies being empowered to levy on the local authority is one which is well established under the 1988 Act and can be achieved under the existing powers of Section 75 of that Act. However, those boards which currently levy under the arrangements with local authorities will have their levying powers abolished under Section 117 of the 1988 Act while powers in Section 74 of that Act will allow them to be made levying bodies under the new system. It is more sensible that all boards operate under a common and consistent basis. It is therefore proposed that all boards should be designated as special levying bodies. That can be achieved by the power in Amendment No. 174ZDC.

Amendment No. 174CAA also relates to the definition of relevant population used in calculations by special levying bodies. Where a special levy is to be apportioned it is to be done on the basis of relevant population, and this amendment provides that the figure for the relevant population used in the calculation will be calculated in accordance with the population report. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Claughton

I shall not make a detailed protest about all the amendments. However, I must say that in another place they have a guillotine system which we do not have here. This amounts virtually to a guillotine system. On this side of the Chamber we have no real opportunity of checking what this vast number of technical amendments mean. The only reason I sit here bemused, letting them pass, is that nobody has written in to me protesting.

I must protest that a series of technical amendments is being steamrollered through. With the greatest possible respect to noble Lords, it is an insult to the Committee to expect Members to go through amendment after amendment of a technical nature which they have not had an opportunity to examine or consider.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. However, one of the sad realities of life in politics is that any government are always in charge of the timetable. They decide how much cloth goes into the suit. They may give the Opposition a say in how that cloth is cut up, but that is about all the Opposition get.

The Government have a serious difficulty regarding the date which I understand is being suggested for the opening of the next Session of Parliament, which is much later than any I can remember. That means that we shall find ourselves in the same position next year. Those are the facts of life and as the Opposition, we can only do our best within the time-scale and make our points during the Report stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZCE: Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28E. The following section shall be inserted after section 75—

"Special levies: information 75A.—(1) Where regulations under Schedule 2 or 9 below impose a duty on a charging authority to supply information to any person, they may also require any appropriate levying body to supply the charging authority with prescribed information if the Secretary of State considers it to be information the charging authority needs in order to fulfil its duty. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a body is an appropriate levying body in relation to a charging authority if it has power to issue a special levy to the charging authority." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZCF: Page 171, line 10, at end insert—

("Grants

28F.—(1) Section 77 (information) shall be omitted.

(2) This paragraph shall not affect the operation of section 77 as regards a case where a notice has been served under it before the coming into force of this paragraph.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 174ZCF I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 174ZCG, 174ZDJ and 188ND. The amendments provide the Secretary of State with revised and more helpful powers to seek information to enable him to decide whether to exercise his powers and how to perform his functions under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

Under that Act the Secretary of State already has certain powers to request local authorities to provide him with information. This is a power which is operated quite routinely to gather, for example, information about the numbers of school children or the length of roads in different authorities to be used in distributing revenue support grant. These amendments delete the existing power to seek information just for the purposes of Part V, the grant part, and instead insert a wider power which relates to all the parts of the 1988 Act. These are helpful amendments which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZCG: Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28G.—(1) Section 82 (calculation of revenue support grant payable) shall be amended as follows. (2) At the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted "; and he may decide different dates for different kinds of information. (3) In subsection (4) after "date" there shall le inserted "(or the dates and kinds of information)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 174ZC. Page 171, line 10, at end insert— ("28H. In section 88 (transport grants: supplementary), in subsections (4) and (6) for the words from "prescribed expenditure" onwards there shall, in each case, be substituted "expenditure for capital purposes within the meaning of Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989".").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. This amendment to the provisions on transport grants at Section 88 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 is currently to be found in this Bill at Schedule 10. Schedule 10 contains minor and consequential amendments which result from the provisions of the Bill. The amendment to Section 88 is a consequence of the provisions in Part IV on capital finance. However, Schedule 5 contains substantive amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It could therefore be somewhat confusing to have amendments to the 1988 Act at two places; that is, at both Schedule 5 and Schedule 10. It makes sense to have all the amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in one place. The most appropriate place is Schedule 5. This amendment, taken with Amendment No. 188BA, moves the consequential amendment to Section 88 of the 1988 Act from Schedule 10 to Schedule 5. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZD: Page 171, line 14, at end insert— (" .—(1) In section 95 (calculations to be made by authorities) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections— (2) The authority must calculate the aggregate of—

1. (a) the expenditure the authority estimates it will incur in the year in performing its functions in the year and will charge to a revenue account for the year;
2. (b) such allowance as the authority estimates will be appropriate for contingencies in relation to expenditure to be charged to a revenue account for the year;
3. (c) the financial reserves which the authority estimates it will be appropriate to raise in the year for meeting the estimated expenditure referred to in subsection (2A) below;
4. (d) such financial reserves as are sufficient to meet so much of the amount estimated by the authority to be a revenue account deficit for any earlier financial year as has not already been provided for; and
291
5. (e) any amounts it estimates will be charged to a revenue account in respect of the authority's general fund or City fund, as the case may be, by virtue of a transfer,—
1. (i) pursuant to regulations under section 89(5) above, of such an additional sum as is referred to in subsection (3)(d) of section 98 below; or
2. (ii) pursuant to a direction under subsection (5) of that section, of such an amount as is referred to in that subsection.

(2A) The estimated expenditure referred to in subsection (2)(c) above is—

1. (a) that which the authority estimates that, in the financial year following the year in question, it will incur, will charge to a revenue account and will have to defray before sums to be transferred as regards that year from its collection fund to its general fund or to the City fund (as the case may be) become sufficiently available; and
2. (b) that which the authority estimates it will incur in the financial year referred to in paragraph (a) above or any subsequent financial year in performing its functions and which will be charged to a revenue account for that or any other year.

(2B) References in subsections (2) and (2A) above to expenditure incurred by the authority shall be construed in accordance with section 39(3) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. (2) In subsection (3) of that section, for the words following "the aggregate of" there shall be substituted—

1. "(a) the sums which it estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund or into the City fund (as the case may be) and in respect of which amounts are to be credited to a revenue account for the year;
2. (b) the amounts which it estimates will be transferred from its collection fund to its general fund or the City fund (as the case may be) pursuant to a direction under section 98(4) below and credited to a revenue account for the year; and
3. (c) the amount of the financial reserves which the authority estimates that it will use in order to provide for the items mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of subsection (2) above."

(3) In subsection (7) of that section, after the word "which" there shall be inserted "in accordance with section 97 below".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDA: Page 171, line 14, at end insert— ("29A. In section 98 (transfers between funds) in subsection (3)(d) the words "and calculated in a prescribed manner" shall be omitted. 29B. In section 99 (regulations) in subsection (2)(d) the words "at such rate as may be prescribed" shall be omitted.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.