Local Government and Housing Bill

HL Deb 25 October 1989 vol 511 cc1464-545

8.12 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

moved Amendment No. 172: After Clause 149, insert the following new Clause—

("Contingency planning and co-ordination in respect of emergencies or disasters.

—(1) In section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers of principal councils with respect to emergencies or disasters) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) if a principal council are of the opinion that it is appropriate to undertake contingency planning to deal with a possible emergency or disaster which, if it occurred,—

1. (a) would involve destruction of or danger to life or property, and
2. (b) would be likely to affect the whole or part of their area, they may incur such expenditure as they consider necessary on that planning (whether relating to a specific kind of such possible emergency or disaster or generally in relation to possible emergencies or disasters falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) above)."

(2) In subsection (3) of that section—

1. (a) for the words from the beginning to "authorise" there shall be substituted "Nothing in this section authorises"; and
2. (b) for the words "the power conferred by that subsection is" there shall be substituted "the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (1A) above are".

(3) At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsections—

"(5) With the consent of the Secretary of State, a metropolitan county fire and civil defence authority and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority may incur expenditure in co-ordinating planning by principal councils in connection with their functions under subsection (1) above.

(6) In this section "contingency planning" means the making, keeping under review and revising of plans and the carrying out of training associated with the plans."").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 172A to 172G, 221 and 224, all of which relate to the same subject.

At the Committee stage, I undertook to bring forward a government amendment following the discussion on amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and by my noble friend Lord Renton and others. Further amendments have now been tabled by several noble Lords and, as I suggested, it would be helpful if we could take all those together.

The government amendments now before your Lordships' do two things: they extend the powers already available to local authorities under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, and they give new powers to fire and civil defence authorities to co-ordinate borough or district emergency planning.

The first point is essentially a clarification of the existing powers. Under Section 138, a local authority may incur expenditure—these are the words of the Act— where an emergency or disaster involving destruction of or danger to life or property occurs or is imminent or there is reasonable ground for apprehending such an emergency or disaster". That would allow an authority to plan, for example, to deal with a river that has a history of flooding, but it might not allow an authority to incur expenditure on making contingency plans against the possibility of a disaster which could not be foreseen such as that which occured in October 1987, which was a one-in-300-years storm. In many cases, of course, planning on that basis already takes place. The purpose of the amendment is to confirm that it is lawful, not to signal a government belief that the total expenditure level in that area should necessarily rise.

With regard to subsection (3) of the new clause, which covers the new powers for fire and civil defence authorities, I listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and of my noble friend Lord Renton when they introduced their amendments in Committee and I have reflected on them since. There is, I think, broad agreement that fire and civil defence authorities should have a co-ordinating power in relation to emergency planning by the boroughs or districts. But the difference, between us, such as it is, lies in whether the fire and civil defence authorities on the one hand or the boroughs on the other should have the duty and therefore the last word. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and of my noble friend Lord Renton seek to give the fire and civil defence authorities, and indeed other local authorities, a duty to plan and to require the boroughs to comply.

Perhaps I may return to the duty point later, but, however we look at it, we come back at the end to the fact that action in a disaster—for instance, providing emergency accommodation—is the legal function of the boroughs and requires the use of their resources. It could not be right that fire and civil defence authorities, which have neither those functions nor those resources, should ultimately be able to determine how the boroughs conduct what is by law their business.

But the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, included in his amendment at Committee stage a number of detailed proposals which largely reflect how we would like to see the new provisions being operated. Similar points are included in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham today. I have thought about those points carefully, but I do not believe that it is necessary to spell out in the statute arrangements which can be established administratively.

We would of course expect fire and civil defence authorities to consult the districts or boroughs in drawing up their co-ordinated plans. It would indeed be difficult to see how it could reasonably be done otherwise. Similarly, we would expect the boroughs to co-operate in the provision of the necessary information. This is clearly an area of common interest. Both sides of the equation will be concerned to make the planning for emergencies as effective as possible.

In turn, the Government will be concerned to see that that commonsense approach is taking place. The expenditure by fire and civil defence authorities requires the consent of the Secretary of State, and we shall be looking to ensure that their proposals recognise the legal responsibilities of the boroughs and districts and take into account the co-ordinating which may already exist, and to ensure that, as far as possible, they have the support of the boroughs or districts.

That is why it would be difficult to advise noble Lords to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to delete the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. If, on the other hand, a particular borough sees no apparent need for the co-ordination of its plans with those of others, I am sure that the new civil emergencies adviser would want to look carefully at what was going on, find out why a local authority takes such an apparently insular view and see whether or not that reflects the best practice that is carried out elsewhere.

We believe that in that way we can ensure that the new powers are used sensibly. The funding for that co-ordinating work is through the precept mechanism. Existing civil defence resources may already be used under the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, and the main expenditure will relate to staff time. The effect of the precept by the fire and civil defence authorities on any one borough or district will be minimal and it can, we believe, be met within the existing resources of the boroughs or districts. There may even be some offsetting savings for boroughs or districts in terms of work which is done by fire and civil defence authorities and which is ultimately to their benefit.

The new clause, which is in the name of my noble friend, widens the scope of sensible emergency planning. Given common sense, I think that it can make a significant difference to the quality of planning in our major cities. The amendment to Clause 187 allows the Secretary of State to appoint a day for the provisions to come into force, and Amendment No. 224 allows the Long Title to be altered in order to reflect the substance of the new clause.

I come now to the question of duty and whether it is desirable to have a statutory duty. I listened carefully at Committee stage to the arguments made by various noble Lords that we should go further and impose a general duty on all local authorities to plan for civil emergencies. I realise the attraction of that course and have considered the amendments that have been tabled by various noble Lords this evening.

In view of the concerns expressed by your Lordships, we have looked again at this matter with some care. I understand, and have a great deal of sympathy for, those concerns but I believe that we need a more detailed assessment of precisely what local authority needs are in this area. The area of local authorities' powers, their duties and responsibilities, is a complicated one. If there is a need for a duty to plan, should it be just that and no more? Or should it be, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested in his amendment, that the Secretary of State should have a power to prescribe what should be included in those plans and to assess the quality of those plans? These are important issues that must be determined if we want to take the right decision.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I will therefore be asking the new adviser to tackle this issue as a matter of priority. We shall want him to look closely at what is happening in practice on the ground and talk to individual chief executives, county emergency planning officers, local government organisations and the emergency services. He will be asked to advise on what is necessary and what is desirable for local authorities to have or be told in order to achieve proper effective emergency planning. We shall want him to report on that aspect of his responsibilities as soon as practicable. I think it is important that we get this matter right.

I can well understand the view that has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton and other noble Lords—to put it simply, if the local authorities have a duty to prepare for war which is unlikely to happen, they ought to have a duty to prepare for peacetime emergencies which we know are happening with an all too hideous frequency. The whole question is posed not because there are no preparations being made; indeed there are. The question is whether a duty is the best or indeed the only way of ensuring that emergency planning by local authorities is as effective as it possibly can be. That is what I want to find out.

Even if I knew the answers to those questions—and with respect I do not think that your Lordships know them either—there would not have been time between Committee stage and now to clear all the hurdles and draft an amendment which would stand the test of time, or indeed the scrutiny of my noble friend Lord Renton, which might be an even more monstrous hurdle to overcome.

I hope that your Lordships will accept that I have taken on board the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Renton and other noble Lords and that we intend to take action on this issue. I hope that noble Lords will consider that the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hesketh are a step in the direction in which we all wish to travel and will approve of them. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 172, Amendment No. 172A: Line 5, leave out from beginning to ("which") in line 7 and insert ("Where an emergency or disaster is possible").

The noble Lord said: As well as to Amendment No. 172A I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 172B, 172C, 172D and 172E. I am flabbergasted that the Government, when they want to, can draft a whole Bill and spatchcock it into the current Bill in respect of the poll tax, but when it comes to a matter of producing something positive in the field of emergency planning in peacetime the Minister can spend ten minutes to tell the House how difficult it is. So be it. I shall not waste the time of the House by either answering in detail the arguments of the Minister or even putting forward our arguments, because the attitude of the Minister and the Government says it all.

Of course the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is a tiny step in the right direction, but the Minister knows—because the information that I have is the same information as he has—that there is a dreadful sloth around when it comes to finding the funding and making plans. Sadly, whenever an emergency arises people ask, "Why were we not better prepared for it?" The Minister knows, because he follows these matters very closely, that that is the moment when people realise that it is too late.

The Minister and the Government have on their shoulders an enormous responsibility and, as a consequence, after this Bill is enacted, a dreadful responsiblility for failing to take the opportunity presented by this Bill figuratively to kick the backsides of some local authorities and others to encourage them to do what we all know will need to be done at some time in some future emergency.

I do not intend to take more than two or three minutes on this point because it is an exercise in futility. We should literally be wasting the time of the House because the Minister has indicated that he will call for reports, ask for consultation and be satisfied that there is a need and a will and so on. In my view all that is simply procrastination. I am very disappointed with the scene that the Minister has set for what could have been a very enterprising and innovative section of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I wish to refer to the first of the amendments set down in my name; namely, Amendment No. 172F. This amendment stands also in the name of my noble friends Lord Mersey and Lady Blatch. It is a simple amendment to the Government's amendment. It would have the effect of putting beyond doubt that the FCDAs would have the power which the Government say they ought to have, think they are giving to them and which we all want them to have.

I have listened carefully to the words of my noble friend Lord Ferrers this evening. He again repeated what he said at Committee stage—that the FCDAs should have co-ordinating power. I think there is still a doubt as to whether the government amendment gives them that co-ordinating power.

In the new subsection (5) which is to be added to Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972—that new subsection (5) is on page 25 of the Marshalled List—we find that the FCDAs: may incur expenditure in co-ordinating planning by principal councils". It may be that my noble friend is absolutely confident that that gives them the power but I say that by accepting my simple amendment he would achieve legal certainty and put the matter beyond doubt.

What I am saying at the moment is purely technical. But of course this evening we are discussing something more important than the mere technicality of achieving what we all want. As I explained at Committee stage, and as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned this evening—and indeed as I thought my noble friend mentioned when referring to the consent of the Secretary of State—it is not enough for the FCDAs to have power to co-ordinate unless they can be sure that the people whose plans they are supposed to be co-ordinating have an obligation to prepare such plans.

One of the worst things that Parliament can do is to enact a dead letter—a nullity. There is a risk that in relation to some of the councils concerned—not all, but some—that is just what we shall be doing. I do not want to take up time with this matter. Because I am a very keen supporter of this Government and a great admirer of the Home Secretary and of all that is being done by him and my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I simply say that I am surprised that the opportunity is being missed. We are dealing at length with a 300-page Bill but we are not prepared to add just one page to it. We are adding half a page: we might just as well have added a page and have done the thing properly.

It is obvious that we shall not achieve what we want tonight. I hope that the step-by-step approach on which the Home Secretary has embarked will produce something as soon as the people require. The people of this country know about the risk of peace time disasters. They are not content with clever improvisation when a disaster occurs. They feel that the plan should be fully prepared and should be good and that the local authorities should have a duty to be ready. I hope that we shall not have to wait many Sessions of Parliament before the full result is achieved.

8.30 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful for the views, which I always respect, of my noble friend Lord Renton. I was astonished by the outburst of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. He said that the Government can alter everything, with reference to the poll tax, so why on earth can we not alter this aspect? He castigated me for speaking for 10 minutes. I agree that it was a long time to speak. However, I thought that it is a serious subject about which the noble Lord, like my noble friend Lord Renton, was concerned. I tried to put the Government's view as carefully as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, castigated me. He and his colleagues have spent their time castigating the Government over this Bill, describing it as ill thought up. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it was legislation being done on the run. As soon as I say to the noble Lord that he has made a very serious point, as has my noble friend Lord Renton, and that we are considering it and trying to find the best way to put this into operation but that when it is in operation we wish to ensure that it is right, the noble Lord accuses me of procrastinating. I do not think that he can have it both ways.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I did not castigate the Minister for taking 10 minutes; I castigated him for telling us in some detail at the end of 10 minutes why one needed to exercise care, to consult, to examine, to revise and, ultimately, to be sure, before putting forward such a measure. I simply pointed out that five hours ago this House was faced with a new Bill in relation to the poll tax. The argument that one needs to be careful when drawing up legislation goes out of the window when it suits the Government's macro-economic policy on the poll tax.

If I gave the Minister the impression that I did not respect the fact that he had taken a long time to explain the Government's policy, I apologise. What I said was that the Minister had explained the Government's policy but it did not amount to a row of beans.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I cannot castigate the noble Lord again. I shall tell him as politely as possible that he is out of order because he is speaking twice on Report stage. However, we shall let that pass.

I accept my noble friend's reservations. I know that he is concerned. He believes that if his words were inserted it would make it clear that the FCDAs should have a power. My noble friend says that the words that we have in the amendment do not give that power—that power is merely implied. My noble friend Lord Renton is a distinguished lawyer and a very astute draftsman. He knows that if we put provisions into the Bill which are different from those already in the Act people will draw comparisons. If my noble friend looks at Section 138 he will see the wording: the council may incur such expenditure". Those are almost exactly the same words as used here, namely: may incur ‖expenditure". If we were to insert the words which my noble friend proposes for clarification—which I quite understand—we would be drawing a distinction between the powers that the FCDAs would now have and the powers which the local authorities have. As he knows, lawyers ferret around in Acts of Parliament to note differences. I hope that my noble friend will accept that it would be better to follow the format used previously.

My noble friend said that people want to know that we are well organised for peace time disasters; he argued that there is a duty for us to be ready. I believe that the response to peace time disasters has been remarkable. A great deal of planning is going ahead. There is no clear view, for instance, among local authorities of the need for a power. Indeed, the Association of County Councils does not want one. It does not see that it is necessary.

I have given your Lordships an assurance that it is a matter on which we are greatly concerned. It is one that we intend to pursue. I hope that even the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will not consider that in that matter we are procrastinating.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 172B to 172E not moved.]

Lord Renton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 172, Amendment No. 172F: Line 26, after ("Authority") insert ("shall have power to coordinate and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, having moved the amendment I shall immediately withdraw it. In doing so I have to say that I do not accept the technical explanation given by my noble friend. However, if he thinks that it is all right I suppose that we must agree that it stand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 172 agreed to. [Amendment No. 172G not moved.]

[Amendment No. 173 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 173ZA: After Clause 150,

("Electronic transfer of Documents.

The Local Land Charges Act 1975)

.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 9 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975, the words "A requisition under this section must be in writing, and" shall be omitted.

(2) In subsection (2) of section 14 of that Act after the word "include" there shall be inserted "(a)", and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

(b) provision for the use of electronic means in the making of requisitions for, and in the issue of, official search certificates, notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 231 of the Local Government Act 1972 (service of docucments on local authorities):

Provided that—

1. (i) such rules shall not provide that a requisition is duly made by electronic means, except where the local authority to whom it is made consents to the use of those means, or that an official search certificate is duly issued by electronic means, except where the person requiring the search consents to the use of those means; and
2. (ii) such consent may be given either generally or in relation to a specified document or description of documents, and either before or after the making of the requisition or the issue of the certification; and

(c) provision to modify the application of sections 10 and 11 above in cases where—

1. (i) the rules provide for the making of a requisition for, or the issuing of, an official search certificate by electronic means, and
2. (ii) there has been any error or failure in those means.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I offer the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who is not present. I hope that the House will understand that he cannot be present for this amendment. I should also like to record my thanks to him for his unstinting efforts and support in preparing the amendment which I believe will help local authorities to be more efficient and to improve their service to the consumer.

The need for the amendment arises from the increasing use of computers by local authorities. There is no doubt that the electronic transfer of documents and information has become more common place. The advantages of using technology are well established. It reduces costs and provides a better and more efficient service. More enlightened local authorities are constantly looking for new ways to apply technology. However, current legislation often provides obstacles. The purpose of this amendment is to remove some of them.

One area which lends itself to the use of technology is that of land charge services which are part of every conveyancing transaction. Delays when buying a house can be troublesome to the consumer but more importantly they can cause serious delays in the mobility of the housing market. A new company has been formed to enable local authorities to provide searches electronically so reducing delays and providing a better and more efficient service. I know that the work carried out by the Land Charges Company Limited has the support of Ministers.

There is a more general need to allow for the electronic transfer of information documents. I hope that it will not be long before the Government look at current legislation and find the areas which inhibit progress.

The amendment is deliberately limited in scope. Having discussed the matter with the departments it is not timely for a more general amendment to be tabled. It is known to be supported in principle. It is enabling only—an important point to make at this time. It allows for the making of rules to allow local authority searches to be sent and received electronically. It does not prevent any local authority from continuing to write documents by hand and to send them manually. I am convinced that it will improve the service. I know that the amendment has the support of the Law Society, the Society for Computers and Law and various local government organisations.

It is important to note that the amendment also allows for the rules to make provision for suitable means of verification of electronic messages. For a long time that has been a stumbling block in the minds of many people but verification is an important point. Finally, it will apply only where the parties have agreed to use electronic communications. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, if it is in order I should like to speak from the Dispatch Box, as chairman of the computer sub-committee of your Lordships' House. In doing so I support most strongly the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is minimal at the present time. However, weekly we are installing new fax machines in various offices in the Palace, and when even the Public Bill Office has a machine, surely the time has come for them to be recognised in local government. I hope that it will be a beginning in the breakthrough of recognising the possiblities of modern technology.

Lord Reay

My Lords, Amendment No. 173ZA would amend the Local Land Charges Act 1975 so that requisitions for searches and search certificates could be made and issued by computer. As my noble friend Lord Hesketh made clear in Committee, the Government welcome the thought behind the amendments. We accept that in a small way they will help to speed up conveyancing. We could not then offer drafting resources to produce an acceptable version but we offered discussions with officials to see how progress could be made. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and his advisers for their efforts to make progress.

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lady Blatch have offered the House the option of including the main amendment either as a new clause or in Schedule 11. The Government believe that it is more appropriately included as a new clause. We also believe that the drafting of the amendments needs some improvement and in consequence propose to bring forward drafting improvements at a later stage.

We are glad to accept Amendment No. 173ZA. When we reach the point we shall be happy also to accept consequential Amendment No. 212A. It will not then be necessary to move Amendment No. 200A.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I am also grateful for the co-operation of the department.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 173A: Before Clause 153, insert the following new clasue—

("Housing accommodation

.—(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accommodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32—

"32A—No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to:

1. (i) the disposal of land, or
2. (ii) the use of funds, or
3. (iii) the payment of grant to a housing association

by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3000 people or less."

(2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50— 50A—No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3000 people or less." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to set the scene I must spell out again the main plank of the amendment. As I explained in Committee, its purpose is to help local, less well-paid persons to become part owners with a housing association of a house in their village or vicinity. The type of person we have in mind would be a district nurse, a farmworker, a postman or a retired tenant farmer. All such persons are vital to the community's well-being. Indeed, if we force those people out of our villages and replace them with rich commuters or second-homers the whole of our society will suffer.

I am happy to say that in their consultation paper issued last week the Government most certainly accepted that point. Their scheme and that outlined in our amendment involve the Secretary of State, aided by the local authority, giving to a local owner planning permission in respect of land which would not normally receive approval for the building of part-owned houses for local persons by a housing association. So far, so good; we are all in agreement.

It is on the question of how to get the houses funded and built that those supporting the amendment part company with the Government's scheme. The Government insist that every part-owner must be allowed to staircase up to 100 per cent. full ownership. Unless that is allowed no grant will be paid. The problem with that idea—noble Lords opposite might use the word "dogma"—is that there is a great danger that the house will be lost to any further local person.

I am pleased to say that in the Government's new proposal the housing association will have a right to repurchase its house so that it can be used for the next local postman or similar local person. However, the trouble is that the Government's scheme, good though it is on intention, just will not work. I am still supported in that statement by 19 organisations involved in the matter.

The Government's scheme will not work because, first, there will be a need for top-up funds when the occupier sells to the housing association. That top-up fund will come from the housing association's approved development programme, thus leaving fewer funds available for replacement role houses. Our scheme would require no such top-up fund.

Secondly, under the Government's scheme the occupier will have a right to sell in the open market, thus losing the house for a new local person, if the housing association does not repurchase within four weeks of being notified. With that condition I do not believe that any lawyer will advise a landlord, housing authority or local authority to sign a binding0020Section 52 agreement ensuring that the land will return to local use. Therefore, the land will not be forthcoming and I have received a number of letters from prominent landowners stating just that. I received letters yesterday, since the Government announced their new scheme.

Thirdly, the Government will not be able to guarantee funds in perpetuity to meet their obligation to repurchase the houses. Indeed, I must quote from the letter of my honourable friend Mr. Chope on the matter which was brought to your Lordships' attention by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Committee. My honourable friend said: I should sound a note of caution at this point". He was talking about money. Housing association grant cannot, of course, be available in unlimited amounts for role-shared ownership. Nevertheless, associations wishing to develop the new shared ownership schemes will be able to compete for resources from the Housing Corporation in the normal way and responsibility for deciding which associations and schemes to invest in rests with the corporation, although the corporation's investment programme is heavily oversubscribed".

Do I need to say more to convince your Lordships that the Government's scheme will not work? But if some noble Lords are still not entirely persuaded they must accept that the categoric statement made by my honourable friend Mr. Chope will mean that housing associations will be very reluctant indeed to commence building the houses in case no funds are available for repurchase. When could anyone at any time rely on continual Treasury funding? Pigs really will fly when that day comes. In contrast to the Government's scheme our amendment would, first, require no further government funding after the similar initial grant given in the government scheme. Secondly, landowners would be confident that the houses would return to the local postman, for example, and so would offer more land. Thirdly, there would be a quicker turnover of houses. Fourthly, our scheme would prevent what I call windfall success or money allowing a local person to become a yuppie—I must use the word—or second home owner living in a low cost, fully owned house in a beautiful village.

I must conclude, but before doing so I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hesketh and his advisers for seeing the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who sadly cannot be here today, and myself and our advisers, and for the courtesy that they have shown. As a result, we have narrowed our amendment and I still hope, against all the odds, that my noble friend on the Front Bench may see his way to accepting our new amendment. The government scheme accepts the problem and perhaps puts the key in the door. Our amendment would unlock it, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Stanley on this amendment, which he has so clearly moved. I should like to recount some personal experiences which I have recently had in connection with low cost housing.

I was invited to a meeting in the southern part of the county of Avon which adjoins the city of Bath and which has a number of thriving and prospering towns within it, as well as many villages. I thought it was to be a general, open meeting. To my surprise, I found myself closeted with the chief executive and his principal officers. They explained to me their difficulty, faced with a very small housing investment programme and with the sale of many council houses from their previous stock. They simply asked me whether I was in a position to provide, within their district, any site on which this sort of low cost housing could be built. I said that I would try.

Equally, in the next-door county of Somerset I am in the preliminary stages of negotiation with the English Villages Housing Association about providing a site adjoining an existing rural village. However, I assure the Government and the House that I should be extremely hesitant and doubtful about proceeding if the Government have their way and it is not clear that the houses to be built will remain in perpetuity available for the class of people for whom they are intended.

We all want to make sure that a social asset remains for the benefit of a particular place. The question is: how do we ensure that? We want that to happen, as my noble friend Lord Stanley pointed out, for the sons and daughters of local people, for incoming key workers and especially for the lower paid in whatever category who cannot buy houses on the open market.

Therefore, we are faced with a choice of two methods. The Government suggest repurchase, and in this amendment we suggest a ceiling to the amount of equity which the individual can buy. If we take the repurchase road, there are many variables. For example, there is the willingness or otherwise of purchasers to buy more than 50 per cent. There is the question of future inflation, future rises in house prices which may be more or less than inflation, and future interest rates. All those factors make forecasting extremely difficult.

In that context I must ask: have Her Majesty's Government sought the views on these matters of the Housing Corporation? I ask that because of the ways in which the Housing Corporation and the Treasury have always worked and still work. I very strongly suspect that the Housing Corporation will be in favour of a ceiling, which is the method advocated in this amendment.

I can see only one way in which the Government could in future satisfy the rather varying requirements of the providers of land, the housing associations who will build and manage the houses and the future purchasers. That would be to establish a separate pot of money—let us call it that—for low cost housing which would have to be replenished annually so that the production of houses could continue and which would also, in my view, need to benefit from any windfall receipts which might accrue. To the best of my knowledge, the Government have not offered such a solution and it would be completely unprecedented were they to do so. That is why I commend this amendment to your Lordships as a far more certain remedy.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I believe that they have covered all the arguments for this amendment in a very constructive and acceptable way. On that basis, I rise to support it on behalf of the Members on this side of the House.

Lord Milverton

My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to accept this amendment. I rise to give my support to it. From material I have received dealing with the matter with which we are concerned, I believe that the amendment is right, good and proper, and I sincerely hope that the Government can accept it. As the noble Lord opposite said, the movers have covered all the points. I hope that this time Her Majesty's Government will be able to be flexible and not just say that it is a good idea but that they accept it.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury

My Lords, this amendment is of particular interest to the Church of England because many of the 43 English dioceses have between them considerable and well-distributed parcels of land in small communities, many of which could be of great potential help to the rural housing shortage.

In my own diocese and others in the South-West region, there has already been a good deal of stocktaking to see which land could be released for this purpose. Next month in London there is to be a national conference for representatives from all the dioceses to encourage and advise us on how to do more for the specific need of low cost housing in rural areas.

However, the Church shares the view of landowners mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Hylton. Before releasing land which it may have held for centuries, even for a cause as good as this, it will want assurance that such action will not run to waste, as would be the case if houses built on such land were in the relatively short term to be sucked into the vortex of the free housing market. There is no doubt in my mind that valuable land resources can be, and will be, forthcoming from the Church if there are strong enough guarantees that the initial good intention will be carried through for a reasonably extended future. For this reason, I am sure I speak for many dioceses in the Church in supporting this amendment.

9 p.m.

Lord Northbourne

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has put the case very well. I want to take up only a couple of minutes of your Lordships' time, because I am myself involved in a scheme of this nature with the Samuel Lewis Housing Trust and a group of landlords, including the Church Commissioners, in the eastern part of Kent. The problem with this scheme is that you cannot make the figures stack unless you have free, or virtually free, land and a grant from the Housing Corporation. If you have a grant from the Housing Corporation, you are then subject to the staircasing provision as it stands at the moment.

I very much welcome the Government's proposals, because obviously they show an intention to support the objective of providing cheap starter homes in the countryside. The trouble is that as the matter stands at present the proposals will not work. I say this with some authority, because I have talked to the Samuel Lewis Housing Trust, in the light of the new proposals which came out after the. Committee stage, and they have told me that they absolutely could not on the basis of those proposals give an assurance to the landowners that this land would in perpetuity, or even for a period of 21 years, be used exclusively for the purpose of cheap housing for starter homes for people living in the countryside. They could not do it, because they could not be sure that they would have the money available to operate the Government's buying-in proposals.

There is another problem, because in many cases these schemes are put together on the basis that the council will give permission under a Section 56 notice, planning by exception, on land which would not be available for normal housing needs. The Dover District Council have assured me that they could not give permission under the Government's proposals because again they could not be sure that the land would continue to be used for the purpose of inexpensive starter homes.

There are therefore two great difficulties. I should like to be able not to support the amendment. But the Government must give absolute assurances, and there has to be an assurance that the Housing Corporation would enter into a binding contract with housing associations to make the money available for the repurchase within the four weeks which are available, and outside their agreed development programme. If it was inside the ADP, the difficulty would be that a housing association would have to hold money back, because they could not be sure when one of these options would suddenly be offered to them. So the money available through the Housing Corporation must be outside the ADP.

In addition, one would want an assurance that under this arrangement the Housing Corporation would not severely restrict the number of schemes in order to avoid their liability. Unless the Minister can give these assurances, I think that the amendment is the best solution.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I should like to support my noble friend and I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.

Lord Dormer

My Lords, I also heartily support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. From my own experience, I know what real anxiety there is in rural areas as the retiring age approaches. Many worthy people indeed from all walks of life who have spent their lives in the rural areas naturally wish to remain in those areas in the future and view with great distaste any removal elsewhere. I should like to support the amendment.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, I broadly support the purpose of this amendment. With other noble Lords, I remain deeply unhappy about the right to full staircasing. I personally should like to see it limited to a lower level. Without that, I fear that, despite the assurances of the CLA, many owners will be unwilling to release land for low cost housing and local authorities will be unwilling to grant exceptional planning consents.

The key point, the acid test, remains as to whether the Government's new proposals giving pre-emption rights to housing associations to buy back shared equity property are, in fact, sufficient comfort to encourage landowners to come forward. By and large, houses built under equity arrangements are not the cheapest housing in the accepted sense of the word, but middle priced housing, to enable people on lower incomes to take the first step on the house purchase ladder.

Of course, many of those earning low incomes in rural areas are simply not able to afford to enter the housing market via the shared equity route and depend on truly low cost housing to rent. This being so, in future owners of land for their own comfort will be inclined to put a restrictive covenant on land they make available for local needs, specifically tying that land to rented accommodation. Thus the very development we want to see—a mixture of rented and shared equity housing—simply will not happen. The opportunity will be denied to many rural people to take that first step on the housing ladder.

This is precisely the opposite of the Government's intentions. The Government have indeed gone some way to meet the general concerns with their proposals for buy-back, but they will not get the results they really want without some limit of full staircasing. I hope that the Government will give further thought to this matter when considering the debate.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, very briefly may I support the right reverend Prelate, because I was a founder member of the Isle of Wight Housing Association in 1974. I attacked the Church at that time, because they wanted to build executive-type homes in the grounds of our rectory. As I was a sequestrator for 15 years, I fought that very hard and then the archdeacon at the time said "Form a housing association". We did so and he became our first chairman. The first four and a half acres was glebe land at a place called Chale Green in the Isle of Wight, where we built housing to rent for people in lower income groups. At that time, the option of buying was not available to them.

I know that the Church has glebe land in this country which could be made available. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, spoke with conviction and he knows. He has chaired the development commission and looked after the rural areas. We have to do something about this. Where I live, in a very rural part of Shropshire, people of retirement age would like to play a part in setting up some sort of housing association that would provide homes for sons of the families in those areas. But they will not do it unless they have some guarantee that those properties will remain and be available to their successors. I beg the Government to accept this amendment or come up with something like it.

Lord Henniker

My Lords, I strongly support everything that has been said. I am chairman of a rural housing association. I do not have a direct interest in shared ownership, but it puts a much heavier weight on those of us who have to provide rented housing if all the schemes in my own county for shared ownership are held up by this uncertainty over staircasing. My own feeling is that it is quite impossible that a pre-emption clause will ever meet the case.

I am a landlord, and over the past years I have put a pre-emption clause on every house that I have sold. When it came time for me to redeem the pre-emption clause it was a farcical operation because the price had risen 10 or 12 times. The Government are being asked for an assurance that they will fill a bottomless pit. This is a most important amendment. My whole life is taken up with trying to provide rural housing for people with low incomes, of whom there are many in my county of Suffolk. Wages in the county have not gone up as fast as perhaps they should. What happens with this amendment will have a very great effect on the whole of the rural housing movement. I know that the Government are anxious that rural housing should be provided. I know that those who have been strenuously involved with the rural housing movement will be deeply disappointed if this amendment is not accepted by the House.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I cannot go back to Worcester in the course of duty without saying that I greatly hope that the reassurance will be given. This amendment has been effectively supported by all sides of the House. One must remember that the matter concerns communities as well as individuals. I can take noble Lords to villages in Worcestershire where young people can live no longer. They are very close to retirement communities where it is not worth while having a shop, a school or a pub. There has been a flight from the countryside. People cannot find low cost housing and have to live in the town and commute to the country.

The Government have already seized this problem and have recognised it to some extent. I hope that they will give the required assurance because we are talking not only about people's homes and their work but also about communities of a balanced and cross-section nature. We want balanced communities. We do not want a flight from the countryside.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I believe this amendment started life as the Jopling amendment. It found considerable support in the other place and in this House. There is no doubt that there is widespread support from all parties to resolve the rural housing problem. I do not wish to sound a dissenting note, but I wish to pose some questions to my noble friend the Minister. I hope he will deal with them when he replies.

I have been trying to work out in my mind the difference between the government's scheme as it has been set out and what is proposed in this amendment. One of the arguments used concerns repurchasing costs and where the money will come from. Whether one repurchases a home under the government scheme or through some limited staircasing scheme, there will be repurchasing costs. These may vary from 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. The housing association will have to take back the house. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is unhappy about what I am saying.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I shall deal with the point in summing up.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, if a purchaser is staircasing a home, it will need to be repurchased for it to be sold to somebody else, who will then have the benefit. Therefore, there will be repurchasing costs. The costs will come from a housing association or a local authority. They will be competing for resources that could be spent for the development of other properties. I am trying to work out in my mind whether we are talking about the difference between the limit on staircasing and what would be the 100 per cent. figure.

There is a difference in the frequency of turnover. One of the arguments in favour of having some limit on staircasing is the fact that there will be a faster turnover and local authorities will have young or disadvantaged people coming into occupation of these houses more quickly. As I understand the government scheme, pre-emption rights remain. There are no windfall gains other than to the housing association or the local authority. Therefore, the benefits from any cheap land that is offered remain with the authority. That benefit can be retained and possession of the house can go to the kinds of people we have been talking about this evening.

I am in some difficulty in deciding what is the particular factor that is at stake. I am not sure whether we are talking about the degree to which one would have to repurchase the home or whether we want some firmer guarantees from my noble friend the Minister when he replies as regards the reoccupation of such homes being undertaken by the people we wish them to go to; namely, the disadvantaged, the needy and young people in rural areas. It is important that possession of these houses goes to the right people and that they do not find their way on to the open market.

There is a question-mark overhanging the matter of four weeks for someone to respond to the sale of a home. It seems to me to be a very short period in which to decide whether there are the funds to repurchase and the ability to do so. Therefore, I wonder whether any flexibility can be offered on the timing of that. The objective is universal across the House that there needs to be a resolution to the problem of providing low-cost homes in rural areas. I support the principle, but I should like to know the distinction now between what the Government have on offer and what is offered by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Cornwallis

My Lords, I also should like to support the amendment. Recently in our local area we produced a questionnaire which was delivered to every house in the village. We received a 78 per cent. response to it. The biggest worry from everybody was the lack of rural housing. It is quite the most burning question in local politics—and there I mean politics with small "p" and not with a capital "p".

I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the situation, but I wonder whether the present scheme that the Government are proposing was—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was also speaking—drawn up by the Housing Corporation. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Housing Corporation preferred the scheme as envisaged by this amendment rather than the one put forward by the Government?

This question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who said at the Committee stage: It would help the Committee if Members knew that the Housing Corporation and its chairman fully support the proposals".—[Official Report, 11/10/89; col. 443.] Sadly, the Minister did not reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I think he owes it to the noble Lord to give us an answer tonight. If he does not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, will press him to do so. I support the amendment.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carter, declared an interest on the grounds that he was, or was associated with, a landowner who wished to provide land for one of these low cost housing schemes. It seems to me a little curious to declare an interest in the sense that one wishes to give away something for less than its value, but, in so far as that is an interest to declare, I likewise declare it. I also have been actively seeking to pursue a low cost housing scheme in our village from land that I am very willing virtually to give away, provided that the situation and the conditions are such that it can remain within the community.

The law as it at present stands does not allow that. I have to say that the law as the Government intend it to be equally does not convince me to pursue that scheme. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, or the Government pursuing the logic of their scheme if that logic does not in fact convince the donor landlord that it will work, and "it don't convince me". If it "don't convince me" and landowners in my situation, it is no good that it is logically right, because the scheme will not happen.

Lots of reasons have been advanced to explain why it does not work logically, but I have to say that I also think that the government scheme is remarkably naive. Offers of first refusal mean that you have to match the offer that you are told has been made. It is not very difficult to conceive of somebody who is in one of these house's finding a yuppie friend and saying to the Housing Association, "I have been offered this fancy price. Are you going to match it?" The Housing Association either says, "That is all bluff, and we won't match it", or it says, "All right. That seems awfully large but I have to keep it in the community and I match it", and the pair of them are laughing all the way to the bank to split the spoils.

First refusal, as the noble Lord on my right said, does not work when you cannot say to the person who has proposed the offer, "If I don't match it, you are bound to buy", and there is no way the government scheme can say that. Quite apart from the logical differences, this is shot through with impracticalities. I have to say—and a large number of non-party and non-committed landowners are with me—that the government scheme just does not carry them with it. If it does not carry them, then it does not matter whether it is logically sound, because it will not work.

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Stanley may be right about this matter. Low cost housing in rural areas is certainly the most explosive rural issue. It closely concerns all those who live and work in the countryside and it closely concerns the maintenance of the social structure of our villages as we have known them. I am heartened indeed by the Government's interest in this issue but I am not absolutely sure that they are right in taking staircasing the whole way. I am very much influenced by the views of the National Agricultural Centre Housing Trust. I set great store by and pay credit to the work of Moira Constable of that organisation.

It appears to be the view of the NAC Housing Trust that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is right. In fact I think it is the view of just about everyone with experience in this area except the Government that my noble friend's amendment is right. That point weighs heavily with me. It is absolutely vital that the low cost housing scheme should make its mark and be a success in the countryside. I also remember what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked the Minister in Committee. It was not clearly answered as regards the views of the Housing Corporation. My noble friend the Minister owes the House an explanation about that.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Stanley and other noble Lords and right reverend Prelates on the persistence with which they have all returned to this important subject of low cost housing in rural areas. I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's position because it is clear that there was a considerable misunderstanding of what was being proposed when we considered the issue in Committee.

There is no dispute between us on the central concern which underlies this amendment—the need to provide low cost housing to those who need it in rural areas. We agree completely that there needs to be a way to retain shared ownership housing for local needs in many rural areas. I set out to the Committee the steps that the Government have taken over the past year to meet the special housing needs of rural areas—the provision of additional resources to the Housing Corporation; our initiative on planning permission specifically for low cost housing developments; the changes that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget in respect of gifts of land to housing associations; and our increased support to the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust.

The proposal contained in the amendment, as my noble friend Lord Stanley made clear, is that shared owners in rural areas should not necessarily be able to staircase the full ownership of their properties. Instead local authorities or housing associations would be able to impose an arbitrary ceiling on the amount that they should own. I must say that this causes us difficulties. The right to home ownership is a fundamental plank of the Government's housing policies. The imposition of an artificial limit on staircasing cuts across it.

If it were a matter of choosing between the two policies—that is, the need for low cost accommodation in rural areas and the promotion of home ownership—we would be on the horns of a dilemma. However, that is not the position. It is possible to have both.

My noble friend Lord Caithness announced on 7th February that we had decided to allow housing associations to prevent shared ownership housing phasing passing on to the general market in those rural areas where it may be especially hard to replace. Let me reiterate the essence of what is proposed. This will be done by requiring the shared owner to offer the house back to the association when he wished to move on. The association would buy it back from him and reallocate it to another person on shared ownership terms. That is the way we can retain the house to meet local housing needs without having to deny individual occupiers the opportunity to progress if they so wish to full ownership of their homes.

Mention has been made this evening of the four-week period. I feel that I must reiterate to the House that this was included in the discussion document for no reason other than the possibility that at some future date, no matter how far away, the position may be reached where the housing association's job has been done and there is no requirement. That is all that it ever was or ever would be intended for.

Great play has been made of the fact that there is in some way a sinister plan whereby the four-week period actually imposes a restriction on the scheme we propose. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Housing Corporation is at present consulting widely on the details of the scheme. It would apply not just in areas where it may be especially hard to replace shared homes but where planning permission had been given on the basis that the site would be available solely for low cost housing or where a private landowner had made land available at below market cost for that purpose.

I was interested to hear the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, concerning restrictive convenants. That is what this proposal and the consultation period is for. Indeed, at this moment we are having consulations. It was clear during the course of the debate in Committee that many noble Lords had not had sufficient opportunity to study the proposals which the corporation had brought forward and that there was concern lest they fall short in some respect of the assurances which your Lordships were seeking.

I hope that I can remove that concern. The main worry was on the grounds of cost. Perhaps I may repeat now in terms that the Housing Corporation will provide any additional grant which is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred to my honourable friend Mr. Chope. I should like to make it absolutely clear that what Mr. Chope was referring to was the entry into the scheme; he was not referring to the further funding which will be guaranteed once a scheme has been accepted. That is an important difference.

We shall be looking to enable associations to exercise their pre-emption rights in respect of properties falling within the scheme. They will do so by making housing association grant available to top up the funding which the association requires. There was concern about the unpredictability of the demands that the scheme would place upon them. However, repurchases will not happen overnight. As with any property transaction, there will be a period while lawyers carry out their work and so in practice there will be no difficulty about making funds available as part of the normal management of the approved development programme.

The amount of money required is small in the size of the whole programme, a programme which upon present plans is set to expand from £800 million this year to 1.3 billion in 1991–92. I must make it absolutely clear that once a property has been accepted within the scheme the funding will be available.

Concern has been expressed by some that that is not necessarily the best use of public moneys. They would prefer shared ownership to exist as a form of ownership in its own right, with grant available at a set percentage and the owner not able to purchase additional shares. It has been suggested that that would be a more cost effective use of public moneys. I have to say that the calculation is one that it is impossible to do with certainty. Under their proposals grant would be locked into the scheme. Under our proposals grant is repayable each time a shared owner buys an additional tranche of equity which can then be recycled to other projects, enabling others to buy.

It is arguable that the government scheme will provide more rather than less flexibility, as is being proposed in the amendment. Whatever the balance of advantage, the fact is that such schemes do not meet one of the Government's prime objectives, which is the right to own one's own home.

Now I do not wish to give the impression that the Housing Corporation scheme is set in aspic. That is why it is now the subject of consultation. Consultation is taking place. The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Bledisloe, asked what the Housing Corporation's view is. Discussions are taking place with Ministers. Those discussions are private. We expect the Housing Corporation to have a point of view. We expect many outside your Lordships' House to contribute to a document which will provide a satisfactory answer to the problem.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend on that important point. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised it in Committee, and so my noble friend has had plenty of time to think about it. The noble Lords, Lord Hylton, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Monk Bretton, raised it. Does the Housing Corporation like the government scheme as much as mine? Can my noble friend get on the Dispatch Box and say yes?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I do not want to upset the Box Protection Society and damage Her Majesty's property! I answered my noble friend's question by saying that we have a period of consultation which is being run by the Housing Corporation, which of course has a point of view.

A particular issue here will be the areas to which the scheme should apply. The proposals the Housing Corporation has put forward are in line with its proposals for the special rural programme. That is targeted primarily on settlements in rural areas with a population of less than 1,000, a lower figure than that proposed in the amendment. The other two categories—where planning permission is given specifically for low cost housing for local needs or landowners make land available at below market value—could of course be in any rural area, regardless of population or proximity to a larger settlement or town. The process of consultation may throw up anomalies or other areas that should be included. Indeed, that is one of the attractions of an administrative scheme; such changes can be made quickly and easily.

The important point is that whatever limits are set the areas concerned should be ones in which there are genuine difficulties in securing an adequate supply of low-cost housing for local needs. Where the turnover of housing is reasonable there will be a supply of other property that the association can buy to replace any that has been purchased outright by the shared owner. It is only where turnover is low and it would be difficult to get planning consent for new build that it is important to ensure that property can be bought back to maintain the local housing stock. We shall look carefully, with the corporation, at the points made in tonight's debate.

In the Government's view therefore the amendment is unnecessary. The scheme that my noble friend Lord Caithness announced in February provides the assurance to housing associations that funds are now available for pre-emption and the assurance local planning authorities and landowners need that they can go ahead without fear with schemes for low cost housing. Indeed I was most pleased to hear from the Country Landowners' Association that it has been reassured now that details of the repayment scheme are available. Their president informs me that, provided there is no impediment to a landowner when making a gift of land insisting that a housing association should exercise its right to repurchase—and that is a matter between the landowner and the housing association—the repurchase scheme appears to deal with the problem in a satisfactory manner. They tell me that they therefore no longer support an amendment on these lines. I very much welcome that statement of support from the Country Landowners' Association.

I am in any case also advised that the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley is somewhat defective. It is unclear whether it is aimed at conditions formally attaching to a consent or to what is in the Secretary of State's mind when formulating his policy on whether or not to grant consent. That is not quite all. There is also no definition provided in the amendment of "rural parish" and there is no current definition of the expression. Existing rural parishes became simply parishes on local government reorganisation in 1974.

However, I repeat that we are not absolutely wedded to every detail of the scheme on which the Housing Corporation is consulting. We are willing to consider the changes in its operation which are suggested, as I pointed out earlier on the points which the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, made with regard to restrictive covenants.

I urge all who are concerned about this issue to look carefully at the paper and to let the corporation have their comments. I do not believe that the amendment before your Lordships tonight will in any way provide a satisfactory solution. I go further than that and say that no proposal that is before your Lordships—be it the Government's or the amendment tonight—will provide an immediate satisfactory solution to a problem which is very difficult to solve in rural areas.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask this. He has referred to a decision of the Country Landowners' Association. If tomorrow at its council meeting the association reverses that decision, will the Minister undertake that on Third Reading the Government will support the amendment?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I thought that I referred to the president rather than to an officer. However, it is fair to say that the noble Viscount would not expect me to speculate until presented with hard and firm evidence.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. With so much support throughout the House, it was an enormous privilege to move this amendment.

Perhaps I may deal with the slightly sensitive problem of the opinions of the officials of the Country Landowners' Association. They have every right to change their minds, but I suggest to my noble friend and to your Lordships that we should be well advised to treat the views of those officials with suspicion until the membership decides. I could read out to your Lordships a number of letters from prominent members of that association, but I shall not do so for two reasons. First, the Anglo-Saxon language might offend the delicate sensibilities of your Lordships. Secondly—a much more important and serious point—the vital matter to which we must address ourselves tonight is whether your Lordships agree with the amendment which I have had the privilege to move. I wonder whether noble Lords agree with the 19 organisations that still support it, or with the one black sheep which has jumped over the fence. Perhaps I should go to collect that black sheep back in order to keep the right reverend Prelates happy. I shall try to do so in the coming months.

We now come to the serious matters. The financial points were clearly stated by my noble friend Lord Hylton. I could go over them again for my noble friend Lady Blatch, but this is a complicated subject. Suffice it to say that perhaps I could add a little, although I do not know how I can do so after the very careful explanation of my noble friend Lord Hylton. At the end of the day, although we may have made savings by staircasing and we may have collected that money back, the way in which the Treasury and the Government work is that the money will go into a central pile.

At the end of the day when one comes to look for more money one has to indent—that is old Army language—each year for that sum. The Treasury will not take into account as regards the amount it gives up the fact that one has handed money back in previous years. The Treasury has other concerns, such as hospitals, on which to spend money. The Housing Corporation will not know what its liability is at the beginning of the year. That brings me to my next point. I fully accept what my noble friend on the Front Bench says as regards the Government guaranteeing to repurchase property involved in any scheme brought into being. However, no schemes will be initiated as bodies will be too frightened to do so, as noble Lords have said.

My noble friend said that the Government had made more money available. That is true and I am most grateful for that, but I come back to the statement of my honourable friend Mr. Chope, who said that the money had to spread over a wide sea. We all know there is a desperate need for a vast amount of money.

I shall leave the matter of the four-week period, although I have to say that the document states quite clearly that property would have to be repurchased within four weeks of being put on the market. I think that will have to be changed, although I accept the assurances given by my noble friend on the Front Bench.

There is the vital point of what the Housing Corporation thinks about the measure. The corporation proposed the scheme that the Government are discussing today, but it was ordered so to do. My noble friend was unable to tell your Lordships, despite being pressed by four or five noble Lords, whether the corporation was in favour of this scheme. I have to draw the conclusion that it is not. I am only sorry that we could not telephone Sir Hugh Cubitt, who is chairman of the corporation, as he is in Australia.

As regards the amendment being defective, that is an old hardy perennial. We shall of course put that right or the Government will put it right at the end of the day. I conclude that the Government have merely shifted the goal posts as regards the scheme; they have not widened them. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

9.43 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 38.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Longford, E.
Airedale, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Attlee, E.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Avebury, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Birk, B.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Blease, L.	Mayhew, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Meston, L.
Blyth, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Milverton, L.
Borthwick, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Monkswell, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Moyne, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	Mulley, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
	Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Northbourne, L.
Cornwallis, L.	Northfield, L.
Craigavon, V.	Ogmore, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Oram, L.
David, B.	Parry, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Peston, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Dormer, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Ennals, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Ezra, L.	Rea, L.
Falkender, B.	Reilly, L.
Falkland, V.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Rochester, L.
Fitt, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Foot, L.	Russell, E.
Forester, L.	Salisbury, Bp.
Gallacher, L.	Seear, B.
Galpern, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Gisborough, L.	Serota, B.
Gladwyn, L.	Shepherd, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Simon, V.
Grey, E.	Somerset, D.
Hampton, L.	Stallard, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]
Hatch of Lusby, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Stedman, B.
Henniker, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hooson, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Teviot, L.
Hughes, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Hylton, L. [Teller.]	Tordoff, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Irving of Dartford, L.	Underhill, L.
Jay, L.	Walston, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
John-Mackie, L.	White, B.
Kilbracken, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Kilmarnock L.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Listowel, E.	Winstanley, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Wise, L.
	Worcester, Bp.
Lockwood, B.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Henley, L.
Belstead, L.	Hesketh, L.
Blatch, B.	Hives, L.
Boardman, L.	Hooper, B.
Caithness, E.	Kimball, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Kinnoull, E.
Carnock, L.	Long, V.
Coleraine, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Colnbrook, L.	Lyell, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Morris, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Mountevans, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Norfolk, D.
Elles, B.	Oxfuird, V.
Ferrers, E.	Pender, L.

Reay, L.	Swinfen, L.
Renton, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Strathclyde, L.	Trumpington, B.
Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.	Westbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and agreed to accordingly.

Clause 156 [Removal of exception to the right to buy]:

9.51 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 173B: Page 145, line 10, leave out ("be omitted") and insert ("apply to a dwelling-house as thereunder determined by the Secretary of State only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 173BA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson; Amendment No. 173C; Amendment No. 173D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton; and Amendment No. 215A.

With this amendment we return to an issue that was raised very belatedly in Committee in this place only two weeks ago. I do not think that I have ever been conscious of an issue on which there was more strong feeling that something slightly out of place was being done. The matter has been debated in this House on many occasions over the last nine years. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Birk, whose name is to the amendment and who will speak on it, has been involved in most of the debates on the issue. I do not therefore think that it would be appropriate for me to take up too much of the House's time in rehearsing the arguments, but there are two kinds of arguments here.

The first point on which I know that many noble Lords felt strongly is that it was wrong for the Government to introduce—late at night on the last day of the Committee stage of a Bill which had already completed virtually seven days of Committee consideration in this Chamber and several months of consideration in another place—an issue which had no particular relevance to the necessary substance of the Bill. It introduced into the Bill a completely new element which had not been raised at any stage before and which could have been raised by the Government or by any noble Lord at any stage during the consideration of the Bill in this House; yet it was introduced without warning, without notice, at that very late stage.

That was the issue which I know caused deep offence to many noble Lords who are not particularly party political—it is one of the advantages of this place that there are many who are not party political—but who are jealous of the privileges and rights of the House and of Parliament. They felt it was wrong that such an element should be introduced. The Minister did not claim that any new facts had come to the Government's notice. He just said that they had thought about the issues of the right to buy and that they thought it was an appropriate time to introduce a new amendment. So that is the issue of procedure, if one likes to call it that. I attach to it the same importance which other noble Lords have given it. I think that it is of considerable but not overriding importance.

The second issue is that of substance. I am aware that on this matter there are very strongly held views. In particular noble Lords whom I much respect, who have defended and still defend in this House the rights of disabled people, feel very strongly that the right to buy ought to have been extended (and indeed was extended) to housing designed for the disabled. They draw the analogy that it ought to be extended to housing developed and intended for elderly people, people of pensionable age. I understand and respect their feelings.

However, as I have said on a number of occasions, I think that they are wrong because I believe that the balance of our concern, consideration and compassion ought not so much to be with the minority of disabled or elderly people who live in accommodation which is suitable for them (they are fortunate to do so) and also have the resources to exercise the right to buy, even if at a discount (they are fortunate to have those resources), but with the very much larger number of disabled and elderly people who do not live in housing that is appropriate to their condition and capabilities or who, if they do, are nowhere near having the resources to enable them to take advantage of the right to buy. I suggest that particularly in the case of the elderly the balance must lie there. There is a very much larger number of people in the second and third categories. The balance must be with those people who are more in need and need our compassion, concern and protection more than the others.

There is no perfect answer to this problem. Nothing will ever resolve all the difficulties and achieve all our desires. If there were an unlimited supply of housing designed for the disabled and for the elderly we should not be at odds on this issue. We should be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who supported the Motion in Committee. Unfortunately it is not so. The fact of the matter is that there is a desperate shortage of housing particularly suitable for those of pensionable age. That housing must be preserved for those who do not yet have it and those who need to come into it and have it when it becomes available.

The Government's amendment which was carried at Committee stage means that that housing will no longer become available. It will go out of the stock of housing suitable for elderly people. Indeed in many cases it would be available to people who not only would not need it themselves but who would in fact disturb the enjoyment of that housing by the elderly people in their blocks.

There are a number of amendments on this issue before the House. Our amendment does not in any way seek to bend the rules of the House. We do not propose to reverse the decision which was taken in Committee. Our amendment is much more limited. We believe that such a provision should apply to a dwelling-house: only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify".

In other words we are providing—and I should have thought that it as a legislative principle of great importance—that this legislation should not be retrospective. I believe that this is a modest amendment. I do not think that it goes as far back toward justice as we wish. However, I commend it to the House and hope that it will achieve the agreement not only of the House but of the Government as well. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, I happen to be patron of a housing association in Cardiff and I should just briefly like to tell the House that this matter is arousing considerable feeling. There is a feeling that sharp practice has been involved here. It seems to me to be utterly wrong to introduce this measure so quickly and, I am told, without consultation. I do not know whether that is true but that is what has been reported to me.

I wish that my noble friend's amendment went further. Frankly, I think that it is too modest on the basis of what I have been told. As I understand it, we are having great difficulties in the housing associations because we have to increase rents. We may well find ourselves unable to provide accommodation for those groups for which we should provide accommodation. I understand that accommodation provided for elderly people which will have a warden will still be exempted. That is good. However, I believe that about 50,000 houses providing accommodation which have been reserved so far for elderly people's needs will now become available for sale. I cannot understand why ideology should be carried to this limit.

If what I am told is true—and I am relying on the information that I am given because as a patron I do not have first-hand acquaintance—it seems to me almost a scandal that these houses should now be removed from protection. If I am wrong I shall be corrected. If they are now to be sold off, it is highly unlikely that they will again become available for letting to elderly people. There is a great shortage of accommodation for elderly people, as I know from my experience in Cardiff.

I look for an explanation from government. I cannot understand why in the very last stages of the Bill they have included a substantial number of houses in the category which is to be made available for purchase. I hope that the explanation from the Government will be more satisfactory than the information that I have been given. I am told that no assessment has been made of the overall impact of this change. I hope that my noble friend will push the amendment to a Division. If he does, I shall walk through the lobby with enthusiasm.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Callaghan. The housing world reacted with alarm and tremendous concern directly after the inclusion was announced in the Bill of Clause 156. It was announced in this House late at night, without warning, with no consultation and without proper explanation. The issue came up just before midnight at the Committee stage two weeks ago. It has been extensively debated in this House for nearly 10 years. During that time I was involved in the discussions. I did not see the result as a triumph—neither a personal triumph nor a triumph for the Opposition—but a triumph for good sense, a triumph for this House and a triumph for spreading more adequately the housing that is needed for elderly people.

What has changed since we managed to have the provisions changed in 1980 and 1984? The exemption was won on all these occasions, although there were certain people who were against it. What viable explanation can the Government give to justify reversing the position on a controversial question of enormous significance to future generations? We have had cries of discrimination. This point has been made every time the question has been brought up in order to justify the case. It was mainly the argument on which the Minister leaned when he replied two weeks ago at Committee stage.

Age Concern, which is the largest body working for the elderly, acknowledges that in one sense excluding these properties is discrimination and that in an ideal world it would not be necessary since there would be sufficient housing for everyone. However, it states that, although it has not received any inquiries from tenants who feel that they have been unfairly denied the right to buy, it accepts that there may well be tenants whose applications have been turned down and who may feel discriminated against. The organisation goes on to state that it receives daily inquiries from elderly people who need alternative rented housing which meets their special needs. If the stock begins to be sold, availability of such rented accommodation will become even more scarce. The present low level of building by local authorities means that most properties sold under the right to buy schemes are not being replaced.

That is the view of other social and housing organisations which are concerned about the matter. Those most concerned with providing homes for the elderly in urban and rural areas are looking to this House to do again tonight what it has done so many times before and of which it has been justly proud. They are looking to this House to safeguard purpose built and adapted housing for future generations of the elderly. And, remember, we are an ageing population. We have a priceless asset—an investment in houses which cannot be replaced. Let us be quite clear that the practical effect of the Government's proposal will he that virtually no such housing is built in the future.

I agree with my noble friend that our amendment is far from perfect and that it is very modest, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. However, at least it safeguards the existing stock. It is a modest amendment which the House, for the sake of its reputation, should support.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, our support for the amendment was clearly stated by myself and by my noble friend Lord Evans in Committee. I believe that there are times when this House must act as the conscience of the nation and I hope that it will do so tonight in respect of this issue.

Lord Irving of Dartford

My Lords, I should like to intervene on behalf of local authorities. Many authorities such as Dartford have spent a great deal of money installing dispersed alarm systems and central heating in one-bedroomed flats and bungalows which are suitable for the elderly but not part of designated sheltered housing schemes. The clause is a threat to such investment—past, present and future—aimed at adapting the local authorities' housing stock to cope with the rapid growth in the frail elderly which is forecast to take place between now and the end of the century. If that need is to be met the investment must continue. Under the Bill it will be impossible.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. I shall speak briefly, endeavouring not to repeat myself. Tonight noble Lords must decide whether they wish to retain the social assets of bungalows and flats for the purposes for which they were built. The question is: should those social assets be preserved or should they become market commodities perhaps with futures attached?

Many noble Lords will be familiar with the concept of trusteeship. I submit that Parliament is the trustee of the social assets of the whole community. We shall be neglecting our duty if we prefer the financial interests of the present occupants of old people's housing to the remaindermen. By that I mean future generations of retired and elderly people. For that reason I commend the amendment to your Lordships. It is a considerably better amendment than that tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Monk Bretton, which, in my view, is far too limited.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, I should like to put forward for consideration one small but significant factor. During this time of an ageing population many district councils have houses with two or three bedrooms being occupied by old people who have lived there all their lives and whose families have grown up and left. They are stuck there. They are not necessarily going to move unless they can be offered smaller and more convenient accommodation of the sort which is the subject of this amendment.

My experience of my own local authority is that it is extraordinarily valuable to be able to free and make available larger houses which can then be taken up by younger and growing families. To put a stop to that would ossify matters and would freeze the occupation of many of these large houses. I should have thought that that would run counter to what is clearly a government objective which all of us would share.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, this amendment worries me because, as I read it, it would once more make it possible to refuse the right to buy to people with disabilities.

Along with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I was originally opposed to giving disabled people the right to buy, albeit reluctantly because it was discriminatory. I took that view because we needed to retain the small and valuable stock of purpose-built and substantially adapted houses. We both changed our minds last year because of what had happened and I should like to tell your Lordships what that was.

Some of your Lordships may remember when the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, moved his amendment last year which allowed disabled people the right to buy their purpose-built and substantially adapted homes, he cited the case of a disabled man whose house was by no means substantially adapted; for example, he could not turn round in the kitchen in his wheelchair or fit his adapted car into the garage. However, he had been refused the right to buy on the grounds that it was substantially adapted although his able-bodied neighbour down the road had an almost identical house—and I say "almost identical" because the neighbour had a kitchen big enough for the man to turn round in his wheelchair.

The amendment was carried and we thought that gave disabled people the unfettered right to buy. But what has happened? This man is still being refused the right to buy on the grounds that his house is exempted under Schedule 5(11). The Government put that right in Committee. If this amendment is carried, as I read it, this man will once more be unable to buy his house, which differs very little from that owned by his neighbour except that his neighbour's house is more suitable. If I have misread the amendment, I am sure I shall be corrected.

As I read it, the Housing Act 1985, when amended by the Housing and Planning Act 1986, in Schedule 5 (11)(1)(b) states that the right to buy does not arise if the dwelling house was: let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person". I hope that I am wrong and I shall be delighted if I am told that. However, as it is, I believe that this is unacceptable discrimination and I cannot support the amendment.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by correcting the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on one point. He said that Schedule 5(11) to the Housing Act 1985 was mentioned for the first time when the Government brought forward their amendment in Committee. In fact, I mentioned that paragraph in my speech on Second Reading earlier this summer. Admittedly I mentioned it not in relation to elderly people but in relation to physically disabled people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who has just spoken, is quite correct in telling your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed, it will leave in the 1985 Act a badly drafted piece of legislation which, in my view, was designed to prevent the sale at that time of local authority housing which was particularly suitable for elderly people who were also physically disabled.

Last year your Lordships agreed to give physically disabled people the right to buy. At that time the amendment which I moved was very ably supported by certain noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. A number of them came into the Lobby with me when the Committee divided. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment, means to reverse that decision. But that would be the effect of this amendment, because there are a large number of local authorities who, despite the decision of Parliament last year to allow the right to buy to physically disabled people, are now denying that right to buy using paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985, as subsequently amended. A number of them have actually changed their reasons for refusing the right to buy following the decision made last year.

Should the House agree the amendment this evening, I shall have no alternative but to bring forward at Third Reading the amendment that I had tabled for discussion at Committee stage, but which I was unable to move because it had already been overtaken by acceptance of the Government's amendment. My amendment was to deal specifically with the case of physically disabled people.

We spoke at length at Committee stage about the question of discrimination and whether or not elderly people should have the right to buy. I personally think they should, but it is getting late so I shall not go further into that matter tonight. But I must advise the House that, if necessary, I will definitely bring forward the amendment that I had previously tabled to ensure that the right to buy for physically disabled people continues.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Minister!

10.15 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I still have eyes in my head. In 1986 in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness, Lady David, successfully moved an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill taking away the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. The reason given was that the Secretary of State had taken too severe a view of what constituted housing particularly suitable for elderly people. How ought the Secretary of State to deal with applications for determinations in the future if these amendments were accepted?

One possibility is that he would approach the task in much the same way as before from the inception of the right to buy in 1980. When he lost his jurisdiction, he had made a grand total of some 519 determinations on properties on the right to buy. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, envisages that the Secretary of State will be equally selective in future.

Alternatively, the Secretary of State could follow what appears to have been the practice of local authorities who have been making their own decisions since January 1987. Faced with an application for determination he could ask: Is this a flat or a bungalow? Does it have easy access and proper heating? Are there no more than two bedrooms? Is it reasonably near shops and buses? Was it let for occupation by an elderly person? If the answer to all these questions was yes, he might agree to exclude the property from the right to buy unless there was some special reason not to do so. We know that this approach works. It has led to over 6,000 tenants being denied the right to buy in less than three years.

The noble Lord may say that this is a middle way, that he expects the Secretary of State to be more ready to exclude properties from the right to buy than he was formerly, but not so ready as local authorities have been. In that case, we need to know how the Secretary of State is to achieve that balance. If he is asked to make a statutory determination he must consider the case on its merits. He cannot have a target of making a certain number of determinations each year, and refuse to make any more once the quota is used up. I can offer no assurance that the Secretary of State would find it possible to make determinations in greater numbers than in the past.

In Committee I invited your Lordships to support the repeal of paragraph 11 for the sake of fairness to elderly and disabled tenants who cannot understand why their homes should be treated differently from other council properties. If their homes clearly belonged to a special category of special housing which needed to be retained for renting I am sure that the tenants would accept this, but if such a category exists no one has yet succeeded in defining it in a way that is generally acceptable.

The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked a question at the introduction of Clause 156. I repeat what I said in Committee. We were prompted to consider this subject by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, as regards amending the law concerning elderly persons' housing occupied by disabled people. We conceded and felt that outright appeal rather than modification was the right way. That is how we came to have Clause 156.

There are two other matters which it is important to remember. I stress again that Clause 156 is not about sheltered housing. It is designed to confer the right to buy on tenants of individual houses or flats with no special facilities or support. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Act is specifically aimed at sheltered homes and schemes with a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a common room. Those schemes remain outside the right to buy. If the wording of paragraph 10 needs reconsideration we can certainly look at it.

There is another factor which we believe it is important to take into account. Not so long ago life expectation was not so great but today there are many elderly tenants of 60 or 62 years of age who can quite easily look forward to another 20 years in the house which they feel they have a right to acquire.

In conclusion, there is a fact that we must face. We believe that there is an inherent unfairness. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested earlier this evening that there was little evidence of the desire for the right to buy by such people. The Department of the Environment has very considerable evidence. The noble Baroness is quite entitled to say "He would say that, wouldn't he?" On Monday I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who told me that since last week her mailbag had been filled with letters from elderly people who were very pleased to hear the news.

Baroness Birk

My Lords—

Lord Hesketh

Perhaps I may return to the remarks made by the noble Baroness at the Committee stage of this Bill. She said that we were not to be led in this House by any cries of fairness. As long as it is my honour to stand at this Dispatch Box for this Government, we support the cause of fairness for the elderly, who wish to have the same rights as everybody else.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sorry to say that the Minister has repeated the arguments that he put forward in Committee. I do not believe that he has added anything new. However, there is a very valid and important point which has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), to which I wish to reply quite specifically. She has done what nobody else has done and that is to look at the detail of paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act. That part of the Act refers not only to persons of pensionable age but also to those who are physically disabled.

In correcting the wrong that was done at the Committee stage, it would not be right to neglect the fact that the Chamber has already taken a considered view with a much larger vote than was available at 12.17 a.m. two weeks ago as regards the physically disabled. I undertake on behalf of the noble Baroness that if this amendment is carried now I shall bring forward an amendment or amendments at Third Reading which will see to it that the protection which is given to physically disabled persons under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 will be restored in full.

When I looked at the Housing Act 1985 I found a spelling error. There appears the word "predessor in title" instead of "predecessor in title". I wonder whether anyone has noted that. The Minister has not done so because he seems to give the impression that this measure applies only to individual houses. I remind the House that the paragraph refers to housing which is particularly suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age having regard to, first, its location, and, secondly, its size, design, heating system and other major features. That means that the paragraph is widely drawn and covers a large amount of housing designed for elderly people, much of it in special locations with special courtyards, and so on.

The argument has been well rehearsed. We do not need to go into it any further. I wanted to respond to those points made in debate. In view of the fact that this matter has been considered so many times in your Lordships' House, we would wish to proceed to a Division.

10.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 36.

DIVISION NO. 4
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Attlee, E.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Avebury, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Birk, B.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Blease, L.	Meston, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Blyth, L.	Milverton, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Monkswell, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Monson, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Mountevans, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	Mulley, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Northbourne, L.
Craigavon, V.	Northfield, L.
David, B.	Ogmore, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]	Oram, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Parry, L.
Ennals, L.	Peston, L.
Ezra, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Falkender, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Falkland, V.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Fitt, L.	Rea, L.
Foot, L.	Reilly, L.
Gallacher, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Galpern, L.	Rochester, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Russell, E.
Grey, E.	Salisbury, Bp.
Hampton, L.	Seear, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Serota, B.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Shepherd, L.
Henniker, L.	Simon, V.
Hughes, L.	Somerset, D.
Hylton, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Irving of Dartford, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Jay, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
John-Mackie, L.	Underhill, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	White, B.
Listowel, E.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Llewelyn-Davies, of Hastoe, B.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
	Winstanley, L.
Lockwood, B.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Caithness, E.
Belstead, L.	Carnock, L.
Blatch, B.	Clanwilliam, E.
Boardman, L.	Coleraine, L.
Borthwick, L.	Colnbrook, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.	Lyell, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Morris, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Oxfuird, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Pender, L.
Elles, B.	Reay, L.
Ferrers, E.	Renton, L.
Gisborough, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Henley, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hesketh, L.	Swinfen, L.
Kimball, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Trefgarne, L.
Long, V.	Trumpington, B.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and agreed to accordingly.

10.34 p.m.

Lord Vinson moved Amendment No. 173BA: Page 145, line 10, at end insert— ("The Secretary of State shall make determinations excluding from the right to buy dwelling-houses that are particularly suitable for and which it has been the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age. Such determinations shall only be made in areas referred to in section 157(1) of that Act and shall be made in such a way as to enable local authorities in rural areas to meet their statutory obligations to rehouse elderly agricultural and other workers.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will assist the House if I explain the purpose of the amendment. Whether it has been negatived by the result of the Division we have just had I cannot say, but I do not think that that is the case because it applies to specialist housing, both built and as yet unbuilt.

Like many in the House, I wholly support the philosophy that lies behind the right to buy legislation. However, at the same time I recognise the inadequacy of the present housing market and feel that for several sectors of society the right to be housed is the greater priority for the time being. I wholly accept that the Government are leaving in place some constraints on the right to buy which may have been overturned by the recent Division; namely, by withholding the right from those of pensionable age living in sheltered housing which has a warden or a common room. I accept that the Government have made a modest gesture to meet this problem. However, I do not believe that it goes far enough, particularly in rural areas which have a different problem from urban ones.

Over the past years, local authorities have built for old people many homes which do not have a full-time warden or share a common room. Indeed, why should they have either? As other noble Lords have pointed out tonight, plenty of people who retire at 65 are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and, it is to be hoped, will not need extra care of that kind for many years. There is thus a substantial stock of pensioner housing that will no longer remain excluded from the right to buy unless the clause on which we have just voted is enacted fully. It is precisely this stock in rural areas which the amendment sets out to safeguard.

The houses in question are often very attractive, in or on the edges of villages, and if sold to the existing occupants would at once command a very useful premium on the open market as wholly desirable residences. There is indeed an increasing demand for pensioner housing. If this is to be met, it means replacing the stock by new building at a much higher rate. Frankly, this would be daft. While housing authorities and housing associations in urban areas have a mountain of problems, they do at least administer a reserve stock that is broadly in the same locality. However, in rural areas the loss of pensioners' homes in a village would often mean the total loss of such homes in that immediate locality.

Old people who had hoped to be rehoused in the community in which they had lived would in practice have to be offered homes many miles away from their social links and often in an urban environment. This would be quite contrary to the Government's expressed desire to encourage care in the community. Noble Lords will also be aware that in rural areas local authorities have a statutory obligation to rehouse elderly agricultural workers and their wives if they are displaced through the loss of tied cottages.

This amendment seeks to make a half-way position between the current law on the right to buy in rural areas and that which the Government are proposing unless they drastically alter their position in view of the proceedings just now. My proposals would not affect the right to buy of the physically disabled and would still leave the determination as to what is qualifying accommodation entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. In practice, these proposals are a compromise Clause 11. If they were adopted he would have to agree with local authorities what the need is for such pensioner housing, and what it is likely to be. This is likely to be based on the availability of those houses that traditionally have been earmarked for persons of pensionable age and are currently excluded from the right to buy. It would be paradoxical if the Government stimulated the disposal of the very homes that local authorities need to meet their statutory obligations, not least when there is a substantial waiting list for such properties.

This amendment does not open the floodgates that would enable recalcitrant local authorities to stick a bell on the wall and call it an old people's home, but it would reduce the possibility of more well-heeled incomers moving into highly desirable housing with a resultant loss of retirement homes which are badly needed and consequent damaging effects on the balance of communities that this would bring. I hope my noble friend will consider that there is merit in the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, in Committee I said that the repeal of paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 would create difficulties in the context of smaller rural communities. I was extremely worried about that. The repeal was put through at short notice. It seems that the position has been somewhat, though not altogether, changed.

Because things happened so quickly there was not much time to find suitable amendments to put down at Report stage. I put down an amendment and then also put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Vinson because I felt that we wanted more shots to the bow. This action is one which might be described as a "Committee stage activity" and, indeed, one would rather have done this in Committee. I must therefore apologise; but the truth is that there was simply no time available in Committee.

It is my intention to refer to both amendments in my remarks. As a matter of fact I am prepared to accept the arguments of my noble friend Lord Hesketh in the main. Giving the elderly the right to buy will not deplete the reletting vacancies of English local authorities by quite as much as some people originally thought. He made those points in Committee and I think that he was right.

However, what I cannot accept is the argument that this proposal will be the answer to the problem in all areas, especially rural areas. I say that because in those rural areas, and in small communities, averages will prove misleading. Moreover, my noble friend was really dealing with averages when he advanced the whole theory behind this proposal. We cannot rely upon increased housing association activity to solve every problem in small villages.

It should be mentioned that last year 600 dwellings were built under the housing, association scheme—that is, in rural areas—for the whole of England. Under half of that figure were for elderly people. Therefore, even if there is a good increase in the building of that kind of housing, it will have to be pretty big before it will have much impact on the situation.

The Government's theory on the matter seems to presuppose a continuous increase in the supply of housing to let which will enable the selling-off proposals to work. Of course, in smaller villages things do not happen quite like that; at best, they happen in fits and starts—if they happen at all. Moreover, proposals to build further houses in small rural communities very often run up against the most appalling planning opposition, and so on. Indeed, that can happen in villages both in and out of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is not an easy matter.

It also appears that the building of this low-cost housing is to depend upon gifts, or near gifts, of land in those villages and that it is not certain where they will be—whether there will be such gifts or such land available in every village. It should also be mentioned that in small villages it is now prettty well known that the right to buy is exercised more rapidly than is the case elsewhere, especially in what I would call "rural suburbia"; for example, places like Surrey where it happens even faster.

I must now return to the matter of the two amendments in hand. I shall not say much about Amendment No. 173D because I think that it is the least appropriate at present. I say that because I am not satisfied with it as it is. Moreover, it would definitely need limiting to rural areas in some way or another. I commend to the House Amendment No. 173BA moved by my noble friend Lord Vinson. It has certain advantages of flexibility. It relates to villages in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, but its successful operation depends upon the Secretary of State's willingness to designate other areas sufficiently widely. I attach great importance to achieving that aim, although I am not sure whether the amendment will be sufficiently effective. The designations must be extensive enough to provide local authorities with the means adequately to meet their statutory obligations. Housing authorities in rural areas have rather more statutory duties in that respect than those in other areas.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take the amendment away and consider it further. I do not want to make an issue of the matter now but it is of sufficient importance that we may have to divide on it sooner or later. Now would not be a suitable occasion in view of the rushed way in which we have had to deal with it.

This is an old battleground. During the passage of the Housing and Building Control Bill in 1984 the House insisted on an amendment relating to housing for the elderly. Housing in smaller parishes has not changed sufficiently since then to enable a different view to be taken.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend because it may help the House. The effect of the amendment which has just been carried, as I understand it, is to restore to the Secretary of State the task of deciding whether or not individual houses or flats should be excluded from the right to buy. That will be the case in all parts of England and Wales. The present amendment would restore that jurisdiction to certain rural areas only. That appears to be subsumed within the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which have just been carried. For that reason I feel that it would probably be more suitable for my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, is that correct? The amendment which has just been carried applies only to houses which have already been built whereas the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, would apply to houses constructed in the future.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, that is one reason why I wanted to intervene. I refer to the position in the private sector. When my company is planning new settlements in the countryside we are under considerable pressure, which we happily accept, to offer land at low or nil value to local authorities in those rural areas so that they can fulfil their statutory obligations to house elderly people, retired agricultural workers and so on. It will be difficult for us to continue to make those offers of land if we find that the result is that the right-to-buy provisions apply and the elderly person sells the house, bungalow, or whatever it is, for which we have given the land. This is a difficulty because what will happen will be that in planning any settlement we shall have to charge rather more for some building lots for other people in order to subsidise these ones for the retired. Then we shall find that that retired person goes off with the swag. That is impossible.

All the amendment is doing, very helpfully, is saying to the Minister, "When you look at the rural areas as a whole and take into account the obligations to house the elderly and retired in these categories, you must be careful to make sure that they can carry out those obligations. You must not push the right to buy so far that they cannot do it". That would be a help to the private sector in planning the future in the way we wish. It would help to get a balanced community when we build in the future.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, as the person who moved the original Amendment No. 173B, which has just been agreed to, I must confirm what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Northfield. The amendment which has been carried refers only to housing completed before the date of Royal Assent or at such later date as the Secretary of State may specify. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Northfield says, it does not apply to future dwellings built in rural areas.

The amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Monk Bretton, add to and are complementary to what has just been agreed. I claimed to speak to them when I moved Amendment No. 173B. I thought that they had been debated, although the noble Lords concerned did not intervene. I should have thought that the right course would be that since I claimed to speak to them, since they were grouped and nobody challenged the grouping, they should now be accepted, as Amendment No. 173 will be accepted.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I have said nothing in relation to all these amendments so far. I voted with the Government on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley and I voted with the Government just now on that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It seemed to me that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Vinson had, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, virtually no time limit. The power which it contains can be carried into the future and it seems to me to deal with the crux of the matter: dwelling-houses that are particularly suitable for … occupation by persons of pensionable age". Such determinations shall be made only in rural areas, to enable local authorities, to meet their statutory obligations to rehouse elderly agricultural and other workers". I personally regret the acceptance of the last two amendments. But I think the best way of rectifying the matter might well be to accept the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Vinson.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Every list of groupings that I have seen today differs from the presentation which he has just given to suggest that the amendment we are now on and the amendment that follows it should be included in the decision on the previous amendment.

The amendment tabled by my noble friends would restore in certain rural areas the Secretary of State's function of determining which properties should be excluded from the right to buy as being particularly suitable for occupation by elderly people. The rural areas in question would be national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and rural areas designated by the Secretary of State under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985. So the intention of my noble friends, as I understand it, is that the tenants of non-sheltered housing for elderly people should generally have the right to buy, but that in certain rural areas the Secretary of State should have the power to exclude properties at the landlord's request.

In speaking to the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I explained why it did not seem right to restore the Secretary of State's jurisdiction. I have to say that those reasons still seem to the Government to hold good, even if the jurisdiction were only to be exercisable in certain rural areas. If that is the case, we have a fundamental problem in deciding what we mean by housing which is particularly suitable for elderly people outside sheltered schemes. That problem does not go away just because we confine our attention to rural areas. The problem may be smaller but it is still there.

The amendment would specifically require the Secretary of State to make determinations in such a way that local authorities were enabled to rehouse elderly agricultural and other workers. Local authorities are required by the Rent (Agriculture) Act of 1976 to use their best endeavours to provide suitable accommodation for retiring agricultural workers who are required to leave their present homes. I understand the point that my noble friends have in mind, but it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to take that into account in considering an application by a local authority to have a specific property excluded from the right to buy. There would not, we believe, be a way of knowing when that property might be available for reletting to a retired worker if the present tenant did not buy it.

The case which my noble friends have put forward for retaining homes for reletting in rural areas is one that is sometimes made with respect to right to buy sales generally. To meet concerns of these kinds without making tenants in rural areas second-class citizens the legislation already allows local authorities and housing associations selling housing in certain rural areas to impose restrictions on resale. Section 157 referred to in the amendment allows them to reserve rights of pre-emption or a power to refuse consent to resales unless the new owner is to be a person with a local connection. I do not think it would be right to say in addition that a rather strangely defined category of dwellings let to elderly tenants should not be eligible for the right to buy at all if they happen to be in rural areas.

However, I have listened closely and I recognise that there is a real concern on the part of my noble friends as regards the housing needs of small rural communities. I shall be happy to discuss this matter with them and explore what ways there may be of meeting their concern. On that footing, I hope that my noble friend may see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, I am grateful for the significant support that this amendment has received from all sides of the House. In the general hubbub following the last Division I said I hoped that the measure had not been negative as it applied to houses both past and future. However, I fear the Minister did not hear that. Obviously, the whole matter is very much back in the melting pot. It would be wrong to press this amendment when to a great degree it has been overtaken by the recent Division. I am grateful for the reassurances given by the Minister. I shall not press the matter further at this stage. However, I look forward to hearing his modified proposals on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 173C: Page 145, line 11, leave out ("repeal by this Act of") and insert ("operation of subsection (1) above in relation to").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 173D not moved.]

Schedule 9 [Amendments of Parts IX, XI, XVII and XVIII of the Housing Act 1985]:

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 173E: Page 231, line 15, at end insert ("and for the words "in default of the person on whom the repair notice was served" there shall be substituted "in a case where the repair notice has not been complied with" ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clutch of amendments, Nos. 173E, 173F, 177ZA to 177ZC, 215B and 215C, refer to the problem of houses in multiple occupation. This matter was referred to both on Second Reading and in Committee when certain amendments were suggested.

If an authority serves a notice under Section 352 requiring works to be carried out on houses in multiple occupation and the recipient of the notice fails to carry out the works, the authority can then do so itself and recover the expenses from the person on whom the notice was served. Amendments Nos. 173E, 173F and 177ZA to 177ZC widen this power to enable the expenses to be recovered from the person having control of or managing the house in multiple occupation. That would aid local authority enforcement and bring the provisions covering houses in multiple occupation into line with those for ordinary tenanted properties.

Amendments Nos. 215B and 215C remove redundant references to Section 366, which is repealed by paragraph 54 of Schedule 9 to the Bill. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the amendments make small and important changes to the processes by which local authorities enforce notices on houses in multiple occupation and recover their expenses. It has in the past been difficult for local authorities to enforce notices on houses in multiple occupation where changes of ownership take place, and the amendments make technical improvements to the process. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has waged a long campaign to reform the law relating to houses in multiple occupation and I pay tribute to his efforts in that area. I believe that he supports many of the changes that we are making in this Bill. The amendments tighten up the processes set out in the Bill, and I am glad to accept them.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his generous tribute to me and to the campaign in which I have been involved. It would be remiss of me not to mention that a great many Members on all sides of your Lordships' House and in another place have given the cause their total support. I can say on behalf of all the individuals and organisations involved that they will accept the amendments, minor though they appear, very gratefully as a step in the right direction. Once again I express my sincere thanks to the Minister.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 173F: Page 232, line 7, after ("control" ") insert ("for the words "subject to section 191(3A)" there shall be substituted "subject to sections 189(1B), 190(1C) and 191" and ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 174 and 175: Page 240, line 12, after ("constructed") insert ("or subsequently adapted"). Page 240, line 14, leave out from ("to") to ("constitutes") and insert ("a part of a building which, whether by virtue of this subsection or without regard to it").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments make two minor but important changes to the definition of "house in multiple occupation" in Section 345 of the 1985 Housing Act which now includes a "flat in multiple occupation".

Amendment No. 174 widens the definition to allow for cases where a multi-occupied flat has been provided by conversion of a larger property rather than being originally constructed as a flat. Amendment No. 175 makes it clear that any reference to a flat in multiple occupation covers multi-occupied parts of buildings whether they fall within the definition in the subsection or not.

These are useful technical amendments to ensure that a local authority is not prevented from acting on multi-occupied property which may not fall within the most usual categories. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 176 and 177: Page 243, line 32, leave out ("and other") and insert ("and all apparatus, systems and other things provided by way of "). Page 243, line 32, at end insert ("and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and to ensure that all means of escape from fire are kept clear of obstructions".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments expand slightly the definition of those matters about which the Secretary of State may make management regulations under Section 369 of the Housing Act 1985. Those regulations, which are being updated for issue next year, will apply automatically to all houses in multiple occupation.

At present managers are required to ensure the repair, maintenance, cleansing and good order of facilities in the property. We added "adequate other fire precautions" to the standard in an earlier amendment at Committee, but it is not clear that that is sufficiently precise to enable the regulations to cover all aspects of maintenance of anti-fire devices. Amendment No. 176 accordingly makes it clear that those will be within scope by inserting the words, all apparatus, systems and other things provided by way of fire precautions".

Amendment No. 177 also amends Section 369 by providing that the regulations may ensure that managers keep all means of escape from fire clear of obstructions. These are useful, technical amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, we on this side of the House appreciate very much the sense of the amendments. We certainly think that they are sensible. The great problem is enforcement. The Government are making provision in the Bill for proper and better management in an area where there may be disaster after disaster. Those can be avoided if the Government will just bear in mind that it is one thing to lay down duties and responsibilities but another to make sure that the people who have the function of carrying them out have the resources to do so. I appreciate that that is not the function of the amendment or of the Bill, but it is a point that should be borne in mind.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendments Nos. 177ZA to 177ZM: Page 243, line 49, after ("code)") insert ("in the first place where they occur"). Page 244, line 37, leave out from ("works") to end of line 38 and insert ("in a case where the notice referred to in subsection (1) has not been complied with"). Page 245, line 12, leave out ("paragraph 5") and insert ("in paragraph 1 (introductory) for the words "in default of the person on whom the notice was served" there shall be substituted "in a case where the notice has not been complied with". (1A) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule (recovery of expenses), in sub-paragraph (1)—

1. (a) in paragraph (a) after the words "dwelling-house" there shall be inserted "house in multiple occupation"; and
2. (b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—

(b) where the works were required by a notice under section 352 or 372 (notices relating to houses in multiple occupation), from the person having control of the house or the person managing the house, as the authority think fit;". (1B) Paragraph 5 of that Schedule"). Page 249, line 43, leave out from ("(1)") to ("in") in line 44 and insert ("applies"). Page 249, line 46 at end insert — ("(3A) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a flat in multiple occupation with the substitution for any reference to a dwelling-house which is a flat of a reference to the flat in multiple occupation."). Page 250, line 10, leave out from ("dwelling-house") to ("is") in line 11 and insert ("house in multiple occupation or building"). Page 250, line 23, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("house in multiple occupation"). Page 251, line 20, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("or house in multiple occupation"). Page 251, line 36, after (" "flat" ") insert ("except in the expression "flat in multiple occupation" "). Page 251, line 37, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 38 and insert— (""house in multiple occupation" and "flat in multiple occupation" have the same meaning as in Part XI;"). Page 251, leave out line 48. Page 251, line 50, at end insert— (""flat in multiple occupation section 623 house in multiple occupation section 623"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 159 [Reports to tenants etc. on local housing authority functions]:

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 177NZ: Page 148, line 19, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, prior to publishing a consultation paper on the introduction of performance indicators to the local authority housing service on 10th October, the Department of the Environment held a series of meetings with housing practitioners and representatives of the relevant professional bodies. I understand that the point was made during that pre-consultation exercise that it will be impossible for local authorities to supply and publish information within three months of the conclusion of any financial year, as it would be for central government. I understand that the Department of the Environment has therefore conceded that point. I also understand that it agreed that six months is a more reasonable period for the presentation of the reports to tenants. Will the Government be prepared to accept the amendment?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I am happy to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 177A: Page 148, leave out lines 30 to 34.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I shall be as brief as possible. The amendment will delete subsection (5), which states: The power to make a determination under subsection (1) above may be so exercised as to make different provisions for different cases or descriptions of cases, including different provision for different areas, for different local housing authorities or for different descriptions of local housing authorities. In other words, a Secretary of State may require different local authorities to provide different information on the housing service on different days of the week. This is an unnecessarily general and strong new power that the Secretary of State is giving himself. The different cases or descriptions of cases might, for instance, all be Labour-controlled authorities or inner London boroughs or metropolitan districts. The Government should at least be strongly encouraged to give a clear statement of why the subsection is included in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent Her Majesty's Government from making determinations which could allow different provision to be made to cater more closely to differing needs of authorities because of, say, size or location. I do not think that that would make much sense.

In particular, local housing authorities in Wales experience different conditions and circumstances from their counterparts in England and we would want to ensure that we had sufficient flexibility to enable that to be recognised. It would be quite wrong for the provisions in the Bill not to allow enough room for manoeuvre should the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh housing authorities decide that different reports to tenants are needed in Wales from those that are wanted in England.

Nor would it be right for the clause not to recognise that within England or within Wales the Secretaries of State might wish to have the flexibility to require different amounts of information to be given to tenants in different authorities. In this era of tenants' choice, would it, for example, be sensible for an authority left with a handful of properties to give the same level of information to its tenants as one still managing thousands of houses? I think not. The first authority should have the protection of the clause as presently drafted.

I can, however, allay fears that Her Majesty's Government intend to use this provision to single out housing authorities for individual determinations as some form of punishment. That is not our intention.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will accept these arguments, in particular the reassurance that I have been able to give him, and that he will consequently feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am glad of the reassurance that the Minister gave, but I am still of the opinion that it would have been better to accept the amendment. I believe that it is better to have a national basis on which to assess than continually allow the Secretary of State to make his own determinations. However, I have no intention of pressing the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 177B: Page 148, line 39, at end insert— ("(8) Before making a determination under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposal to introduce performance indicators for the local authority housing service has the general, cautious support of the local authority associations. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities certainly believes that its members should provide information for tenants. However, comments made by Mr. Michael Howard, the Minister for Water and Planning, at the Conservative Party Conference seemed to indicate that the Government are considering making those indicators statutory and will tighten them up in future years so that comparisons can be made between local authorities at the regional and national levels.

On 10th October the Department of the Environment issued to the local authority associations and other interested bodies a consultation paper on performance indicators and, as I understand it, comments were due to be back with the Department of the Environment in early December. This subsection is designed to ensure that at least the local authority associations are consulted on any change to these proposals in future years.

On the basis of what I have said I hope that the Minister will feel inclined to be sympathetic and will accept this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I accept the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, one should give brief thanks for small gifts. I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 177C not moved.]

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 177CA: After Clause 165, insert the following new clause:—

("Court orders and the possession of property by landlord.

.—(1) Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) below.

(2) In section 7(3) the words "… subject to subsections (6) and (6A) below…" shall be substituted for the words "… subject to subsection (6) below…"

(3) After section 7(6) there shall be inserted a new subsection 6A as follows:—

"6A (a) The Court shall not make an order for possession on any ground which the landlord or any predecessor in title of the landlord seeking such possession has promised shall not be used against the tenant, whether that promise is continued in the original tenancy or any subsequent variation thereof, or in a separate contract of release.

(b) This subsection does not alter or limit the existing law in relation to waiver or estoppel."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot be as brief as I am sure the House would like me to be at this time of night because I have to raise a rather important matter, which I believe should be of concern to the Government. In moving this amendment I shall also address a few remarks at the end to Amendment No. 202ZA which is grouped with it.

I believe that this is a very important amendment. The National Consumer Council has just received an authoritative counsel's opinion warning that contractual clauses purporting to give assured tenants enhanced security of tenure may be unenforceable. For example, Clause 4(2) of the National Federation of Housing Association's model tenancy agreement, intended for use with tenants' choice transfers and already in use for thousands of "voluntary transfer" tenants' agreements, may in fact be unenforceable. In respect of tenants' choice, the Housing Corporation's proposals for enforcing security of tenure clauses may be procedurally ineffective and also ultra vires.

The National Consumer Council rightly says that it is gravely concerned about this situation. Council tenants wanting to choose a new landlord may be penalised by facing considerably stricter mandatory grounds for possession. They are likely to perceive this as involving a significant reduction in their security of tenure. Independent landlords may be prevented from attracting council tenants with promises that they will retain their security of tenure. It cannot be fair or reasonable that such tenants and non-council landlords are possibly penalised in this way. The Government have called for an even playing field for tenants' choice. Surely that should also apply in this context.

The consumer council is aware that the true legal situation will not be clear until the matter is settled in court. Nonetheless, on the basis of the best legal advice it can obtain, it is clear that there is a substantial risk for tenants that the clauses in question are unenforceable. On the basis of its close contact with tenants, it feels that the problem is likely to undermine tenants' confidence and support for tenants' choice.

The situation is perhaps worse for the thousands of council tenants already transferring under voluntary transfers. They have for the most part been promised that they will retain their rights. Their tenancy agreements explicitly state this. The fear is now being expressed that they have been misled, even if unintentionally. I am not accusing the Government in any way. Once again we fear that such tenants will be distressed and angry. The programme of voluntary transfers may be disrupted until the position is corrected. I am sure that the Government—who wish to see it corrected—will be concerned about the matter. There is another aspect to the problem. Many thousands of new assured housing association tenants have clauses promising enhanced security of tenure. The National Consumer Council fears that these clauses are also unenforceable; that those tenants may also have been unintentionally misled.

It is for those reasons that we believe that the amendment before your Lordships' House is necessary if tenants are to be able to rely on the security of tenure written into their tenancy agreements.

I have lengthy copies of advice from eminent counsel, Robin Allen, who advises that a statutory amendment is the most sensible solution to this problem. I shall not bore the House by reading the 18 pages referring to the first part of the amendment. I shall read his conclusion. He states: My conclusion for the purposes of this part of this advice is that there is a serious problem about the inconsistencies between the enhanced protection given by the terms of the model agreement —the NFHA agreement— which appear to exclude all but one ground for mandatory possession and in the case of that ground modify its terms. While he considers that there is a substantial argument which may be mounted to justify a tenant seeking to rely on terms of agreement in the face of a landlord who seeks to enforce the express wording of the 1988 Act, he cannot advise that such a tenant would be certain of success.

Finally, I read from the second part of the conclusion. I dare say that the Government have seen these documents already. Having gone through a second opinion on this model agreement, he says that it would appear that the amendment which is before the House tonight is the only sensible way to ensure that this otherwise appropriate and useful model agreement—the NFHA agreement—is in fact effective. In other words, eminent counsel is saying that there is a grave risk that if a rogue landlord challenges the issue in the courts, a tenant who thinks he is perfectly safe, having the same security of tenure—having moved from council tenancy to housing association tenancy, or to a private landlord—may find that he does not have the security that he has been promised.

The justification for the second part of the amendment is this. We think the tenants ought to have the right of independent, financial and legal services so that they are informed of such a possibility. That is what the second amendment provides. The legal financial housing issues raised by such transfers are obviously many and complex. Legal advice is needed on the terms of any proposed tenancy agreement, and whether tenants' existing rights are preserved.

Some local authorities who are pursuing voluntary transfer—asking tenants to move from council tenancies to housing associations tenancies—are not willing to fund such advice. If noble Lords were asked to give advice to tenants who were placed in this situation, possibly favouring a move to a housing association, they would have to say that in the light of the advice given by eminent counsel the tenants would be absolutely stupid to do so. However, they ought at least to be given the opportunity to obtain that advice and be helped with it. Unfortunately, some local authorities are not willing to fund the advice. For example, the London Borough of Redbridge is currently pursuing the transfer of its general needs housing to a newly created housing association. Although it has set aside the sum of £500,000 to pay for the cost of doing so, it is unwilling to give tenants more than a few hundred pounds to pay for advice. The tenants' participation advisory service estimates that about £10,000 may be sufficient to pay for such advice.

I shall not continue because I assume that the Government have been made aware of the problem. Therefore, I hope that in reply the Minister will assure me that they have the matter under serious consideration and intend to do something about it. If they will not accept my amendment then at least they should bring forward their own amendment on Third Reading. The situation puts in jeopardy the whole question of the transfer of letting accommodation from the public to the private sector. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter and also for the representations that we have received from the National Consumer Council.

Part I of the Housing Act 1988 provided for most new lettings by private landlords, including housing associations, to be assured tenancies. The assured tenancy regime provides long-term securing of tenure with only strictly circumscribed grounds of posssession by the landlord. Be that as it may, it is open to the proposed new landlord to offer the tenant contractual rights additional to those provided in the statute.

The NCC has kindly made available to my department an opinion of counsel it has recently received on this matter. I think that it would be fair to say that the main message to emerge, and one with which I agree, is that, in the highly unlikely instance of a landlord reneging on a contractual undertaking he had publicly given not to exercise a statutory ground of possession, there are good reasons to think that a tenant would be likely to be successful in obtaining a remedy, although there is as yet no directly applicable case law.

I am bound to say that I consider it extremely unlikely that a potential rogue landlord would have had much success in persuading a local authority to agree to sell to him or the Housing Corporation to approve him for tenants' choice. Most, though not all, landlords engaged in these activities are besides likely to be registered housing associations, which are subject to most rigorous monitoring by the Housing Corporation, backed by draconian sanctions in any cases of misconduct or mismanagement. Tenants will besides be very reluctant to entrust themselves to a new landlord unless they are thoroughly satisfied as to his bona fides.

It seems to us a grave mistake to legislate now to provide for a remedy which in all probability would in any event be obtainable in the courts were the situation envisaged ever to arise. If experience were to show, contrary to our expectations, a need for a statutory remedy, that could be considered in all the circumstances of the time and against the background of a real rather than hypothetical case.

I turn to the second of the noble Lord's amendments, No. 202ZA. I hope to persuade him that it is not needed and is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because there are fundamental differences between tenants' choice and voluntary transfers. The main difference which is relevant here is that in the case of tenants' choice the local authority may not be a willing party to the disposal. That is the price one has to pay for giving tenants the right to choose. As a result, it would not be reasonable to expect the local authority to carry out the consultation of tenants or to explain the proposal. That responsibility lies with the applicant landlord. In those circumstances, we have introduced an outside body in the form of the Housing Corporation to oversee the process.

In the case of a voluntary transfer, the involvement of the corporation is not necessary. By definition, the local authority is a willing party. The onus is on the authority to spell out the proposals to tenants. It is given that responsibility by Schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985. A tenant who wants information or assistance can seek it from the authority.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, it is a great pity that we have to raise this matter at 11.25 in the evening. Of course, the Government are satisfied and believe that tenants who transfer have this security. However, it is not quite good enough to rely on that and say, "We think it is all right but we may have to reconsider that situation if the case came before the courts". We have counsel's opinion on this and it cannot lightly be set aside.

I am trying not to be destructive but, rather, constructive. There is no doubt that unless some sort of copper-bottomed guarantee is given, future transfers just will not happen because tenants will be worried, and rightly worried, if counsel is saying—the Government have had the advantage of seeing the opinion though perhaps they have not had very long to study it; I have certainly read it—that there may be a possibility that at some future date they do not have that security.

I am sure the Minister will agree that it is very important that these NFHA agreements and others should be found to hold water. I do not wish to divide the House but I hope the Government will consider what I said and what is in counsel's opinion before Third Reading to see whether or not they can give a further assurance. Who is to meet the cost if a rogue landlord takes somebody to court on this issue? That could be very expensive and there is no way in which the unlucky tenant who thinks he is perfectly safe will be able to fund that. I believe that should be underwritten in some way. I throw that out as a possibility. I wish to be constructive rather than destructive and I hope that the Government will look again to see whether or not they can give a guarantee as regards this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 178 [Security of tenure on ending of long residential tenancies]:

11.30 p.m.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 177D: Page 165, line 1, after ("a") insert ("contractual").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause deals with the rights of long lessees of flats at the end of their leases. I shall move and speak to two amendments designed to improve this clause and in a further amendment I shall ask your Lordships to omit the clause from the Bill. At this point, I should repeat the declaration of interest which I made on Second Reading. I live in a flat, the lease of which expires in 12 years' time. When your Lordships hear me speak you will realise that I am concerned in the second and third amendments which I shall move but not in the amendment to which I am now speaking.

Clause 178(3) is intended to withdraw from 15th January' 1999 the right of long lessees of flats at low rents the protection of the Rent Act when the lease has ended. The clause will make those tenants assured tenants in accordance with the regime set up by the Housing Act 1988. The effect of that will be that market rents will be paid rather than Rent Act fair rents.

The Government say that those provisions are to be postponed until 1999 in order to give a period of adjustment and to take some account of the fact that hefty premiums are paid for the short periods at the end of leases, so that some leases will sustain financial loss if those rights are lost. I consider those arrangements for a period of adjustment to be defective and unfair to lessees.

Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides that at the term date of a lease the tenancy will continue until terminated, and there are other provisions in the Act which provide for termination. It will continue at the previous ground or low rent. At the term date the landlord can consider whether he has grounds to terminate the continued tenancy and obtain possession. If not, he can terminate the continued tenancy and create a Rent Act statutory tenancy. He would then be entitled to a fair rent.

Clause 178(3) provides that a long tenancy in existence on 15th January 1999 will be subjected to the new assured tenancy regime. This was not generally appreciated, but it became apparent during and after the Committee stage debate that this can apply to leases which will have expired long before 1999 just as much as to leases expiring then. It will apply if by that date the landlord has not terminated the continued tenancy to bring about a statutory tenancy.

Circumstances in which a landlord might take what may seem a quixotic action and leave the continued tenancy to run on until 15th January 1999 are when he thinks his best financial interest would be served by foregoing the right to increase from a low rent or a ground rent to a fair rent in the period before 1999, in order to receive much higher market rents after 1999.

Assuming a long lease coming to an end in 1993, the landlord sees a well established, healthy young couple in possession. They are not going to want to move for years to come, so it may well be in the landlord's interest to continue collecting the ground rents for a few years more, in order to be certain of an open market rent from 1999 and for what may be the best part of the tenant's lifetime thereafter.

What this means is that lessees whose leases are going to expire between now and 1999 cannot be certain they will retain their statutory tenancies in 1999. This seems to me altogether undesirable and I should be very surprised if it was really the intention of the Government. My proposal is that only long lessees, whose leases expire on or after 15th January 1999, should be subject to the assured tenancy regime.

It may be that my amendment is defective because of ambiguity as to what is a contractual tenancy in these circumstances. But my noble friend Lord Hesketh is well aware of my concern. If he finds the drafting defective I hope he will offer to take away my proposal and come back with his own amendment at Third Reading.

I should remind your Lordships that this clause had its birth in the White Paper preceding the 1988 Housing Act. It then proved too difficult to draft. It has again proved too difficult to be drafted properly for this Bill; nevertheless it is now before us. I mention this because I and others who have studied the Act were not originally aware of the features which I am drawing to your Lordships' attention tonight. I should like to read from the department's explanatory memorandum to the White Paper of 1987 which led to the Housing Act. It said: A transitional period of 10 years from the date of commencement is therefore proposed during which Part I of the 1954 Act will continue to apply in its present form to existing long leases on expiry. The new regime will apply to leases expiring after the transitional period".

That is what I am asking the Government for. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

My Lords, having read with extreme care the earlier criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, of Clause 178, made both at Second Reading and at Committee stage, I do at one level very much sympathise with him. But on another level I have to point out that successive governments for almost 75 years have interfered clumsily with the law of contract and with the rather more metaphysical law of supply and demand, insofar as these laws relate to housing. Because of this any major shift in the law is bound to dash somebody's expectations. Those who have such hopes consider them to be legitimate but, objectively speaking, I do not believe that that can be so however much one may sympathise with those who are caught out.

Let us cast our minds back a little more than 20 years. After the introduction of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, may leaseholders who had paid a pittance for leasehold houses in the expectation that they were buying a wasting asset suddenly found themselves enormously wealthy overnight, following the decision of the then Labour Government to extend leasehold reform from a limited number of working-class, mainly terraced houses in South Wales, to embrace Georgian and Victorian houses in Chelsea, Kensington, Pimlico, Hampstead, Dulwich and so on. One of my close relations by marriage was one of those who benefited enormously from this Act.

The losers were two-fold. The first were those who had sold their leasehold interest just before the Act was introduced in the expectation that they were selling a wasting asset. The second losers were the ground landlords, many of them charities. What I am trying to point out is that there are bound to be random winners and losers. The latter will very understandably feel aggrieved until such time as governments cease to interfere clumsily with the law of contract and the law of supply and demand for housing so that the latter is brought into balance as is the case in most countries in continental Europe.

For all the hardship that this clause inflicts on certain individuals, I believe it is designed to advance towards this goal. So while there may be room for minor improvements to the clause, by and large I support it.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I am sure it is always good for the erudition of your Lordships' House to have a contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Monson. One matter that I do remember about the Leasehold Reform Act is that even the late Dick Crossman was rather shocked by the probity of it. I recall that fact from reading his diaries this summer for the second time.

This is the first of a series of amendments that my noble friend has tabled relating to the long residential tenancy provisions in the Bill. As my noble friend said, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that only existing long leases whose term date falls on or after 15th January 1999 would be affected by the new provisions. Under the Bill as drafted, the new regime established in Schedule 10 will apply to those existing long tenancies whose fixed term has expired prior to 15th January 1999, but which have not by that date been terminated under the current procedure set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. It has always been a basic feature of the 1954 Act regime that when the fixed term of a long tenancy expires, the tenancy continues to run on as a long tenancy unless and until brought to an end under the procedure laid down in the Act.

My noble friend has argued that as 15th January 1999 gets closer, there will be an incentive for landlords to delay taking the necessary action to terminate a long tenancy following the expiry of the fixed term because by doing so they will be able to create an assured tenancy rather than a Rent Act tenancy. But I do not regard this as in any way self-evident, bearing in mind that a tenancy remains a long tenancy after the fixed term has expired, with the tenant thus continuing to pay only a low rent until the landlord acts to create a new tenancy. I find it hard to believe that many landlords will be willing to accept a ground rent, which will typically amount to £100 or so per annum, for a significant period in the hope that the market rent will be much higher than the fair rent. It is, of course, impossible to predict what the relationship between fair rents and market rents will be in 1999.

We were of course aware of the point that my noble friend has raised when the Bill was introduced. As I said in Committee, we are satisfied that the transitional provisions that we have written into the legislation will be sufficient to ensure that no existing tenant is unfairly treated by virtue of the changes we are proposing. I hope that, in the light of this, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, I certainly would not withdraw the amendment in the light of what my noble friend has said. I have put forward what I think is an improvement to the Bill and what would certainly bring it into conformity with the original expressed intentions of the Government and relieve a lot of anxiety on the part of many lessees whose leases are going to expire in the period leading up to 1999. As I have said, I consider that the whole clause should be taken out of the Bill, and in the circumstances I would wish to do no more than to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 177E: Page 165, line 12, at end insert— ("(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a tenancy if on the date of expiry of the term of years certain of that tenancy, whether before or after 15th January 1999, the tenant or one of the tenants is a person who was at any time before the date of commencement of this section the tenant or one of the tenants under the same tenancy or the spouse of any such person.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that existing tenants under long leases affected by Clause 178(3) and their spouses do not have their rights taken from them by this clause, irrespective of when their leases expire. It does not seem reasonable that these particular existing tenants should have their personal rights taken away from them on the wholly artificial grounds that their statutory tenancies are not now in existence. This would be, to my way of thinking, unacceptably retrospective legislation.

I would also submit that unless we are to say that an existing statutory tenant is to lose Rent Act protection from 1999 we should not give different treatment to existing long lessees who may be said to be pregnant with Rent Act protection, however long a period of gestation there may be before that Rent Act protection begins.

Only the other day I had a letter from a lady in Kensington. She told me that she and her husband are lessees of a one-bedroomed flat. Their lease expires in 2006, when her husband will be 76 and she will be 61. Her worry was what would happen to them then. Surely it is not reasonable for that couple to be denied Rent Act protection whenever their lease ends, and to be treated less favourably than another person who happens to be a statutory tenant now and perhaps became one by claiming Rent Act protection against an unwilling landlord. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that existing long residential tenants and their spouses would retain their entitlement to a Rent Act tenancy under Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 irrespective of the date on which the long tenancy was brought to an end. If they assigned their tenancy after Clause 178 came into effect the new tenant would be subject to the 15th January 1990 cut-off date for such an entitlement.

As my noble friend has said, the amendment is aimed at protecting the expectations of existing tenants. It would however mean that the new Rent Act tenancies could arise for a very long period indeed—the lifetime of existing tenants and their spouses—because many long leases have periods of 99 years or longer.

As I said in Committee, we entirely accept the need to safeguard the position of tenants with long leases which have only a few years to run, and in particular of those who bought the tail-end of leases at a price which reflects an expectation that they will qualify for Rent Act tenancy when the long lease ends. We believe, however, that we should only allow new Rent Act tenancies to arise for finite period, long enough for the people affected to adjust to the new situation and make appropriate arrangements. Our judgement is that the 10-year period that the Bill allows is adequate, which is why we resist my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, my noble friend is clearly adamant on this point, and, for the same reason as with the previous amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.45 p.m.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 177F: Leave out Clause 178.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposed transfer of tenants under long residential tenancies from the fair rent system to the open market assured tenancy regime from 1999 is a radical change from our long leasehold law and calls for the closest attention of this House. It would amount, in my opinion, to a mischievous destabilisation of the relationship which exists between landlords of flats and their tenants in the sensitive closing years of long leases. It would do this for no compelling reason.

I am sorry to have to say that we have here what seems to me a doctrinaire insistence that a commitment, which I unreservedly share, to making the move from controlled rents to the fixing of rents by market forces must be the one factor which ousts all other relevant considerations; the be-all and end-all of legislative thinking.

I say that this is doctrinaire and destabilising because it would not have effect for nine years and during that period any sane observer of the leasehold scene would surely have expected a government of any complexion to have introduced a comprehensive reform of leasehold law.

The way in which this is presented by my noble friend on behalf of the Government is that the nine-year period is a period of grace for flat owners, reducing their financial loss. I submit that that is a false analysis. It assumes that there would be a case for transferring to the assured tenancy system now. There is no such case. There will be no such case as long as the existing statutory tenancy system on a fair rent basis continues for other statutory tenants; because there is no reason why we should treat long residential tenants less favourably than straightforward Rent Act statutory tenants. If anything, long residential tenants have greater claim to their rights than the others.

I raised the question at Second Reading of why this legislation should be introduced at this time. No answer was given to that question but since then I have had helpful correspondence with my noble friend who has put the Government's position to me. Subsequently in Committee—when the Government at three o'clock in the morning finally introduced this legislation in the form we now have it—my noble friend explained that under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 a tenant may remain in his home when the long tenancy comes to an end as a statutory tenant under the Rent Act 1977.

My noble friend went on to say: It would in our view be a total nonsense to perpetuate this regime, given the changes which have been brought in under the Housing Act".—[Official Report, 11/10/89; col. 506.] My noble friend was referring to the fact that new tenancies are now to be assured tenancies and that no more statutory tenancies are to be created under the Rent Act. That was all he had to say to justify the Government's proposals. He offered no arguments.

I should add that in reply to the debate my noble friend added the thought that long leases can be for 99 or 999 years. He then told the Committee that to permit all lessees under existing leases to enjoy Rent Act protection would have meant permitting the creation of new Rent Act tenancies on a virtually indefinite basis. If I may borrow my noble friend's turn of speech, that one really is total nonsense, as I shall seek to demonstrate.

Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 gives to long lessees what is termed the protection of the Rent Act when their leases come to an end. They do not have any specific Rent Act protection other than that which is given to the generality of statutory tenants. No doubt the time will come—and I hope it does—when government decide that Rent Act protection is no longer needed by tenants. When that time comes and rent protection is abolished generally the protection of the Rent Act will automatically be removed from 1954 Rent Act tenants. There will then need to be no discriminational differentiation between them and other statutory tenants.

I remind the House how all statutory tenants were treated on an equal footing in the Housing Act last year. Until then a statutory tenancy could, for the time being, pass twice to relatives following the death of the statutory tenant. Now, by Section 39 of the Housing Act, a statutory tenancy may pass once only. This affected the right enjoyed by the 1954 Act tenants in exactly the same way as it did other statutory tenants and no need was seen then for the erection of an elaborate pile of legislation or to give them nine years in which they were to adjust to their diminished circumstances. Why then, when the time is eventually ripe, should the Government not deal in exactly the same way with fair rents, both for the 1954 Act and for other statutory tenants?

By asking that there should be similarity of treatment between these types of tenancies, noble Lords will see that I am very far indeed from advocating the preservation of rent control into eternity; or for 99 years or, of necessity, even for nine years. It may be that in the normal way no further statutory tenancies can be created under the Rent Act, but these 1954 Act tenants have vested rights which, for the most part, they will have legitimately bought. The proposed legislation will strip many flat owners of rights which have gone with long leases of flats since before the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. And in the nearly 50 years which have elapsed since then, other factors have intervened to reinforce the need to maintain the rights of long lessees under the 1954 Act regime.

The nature of our long leasehold system, the physical differences between a block of flats and a single house, the problems which are inherent during the tail end years of a long lease, all would seem to me to make it irresponsible at this time to step in and disturb a delicate balance by weakening the position of tenants as against their landlords. I remind the House that virtually all these landlords will have acquired their reversion; with full knowledge of the rights of tenants under the 1954 Act. It is well known that many of the owners of short lease reversions in London are speculators.

There is the difficulty with the last years of a lease of a flat—I am talking of a remaining term which may be as long as five years—that it cannot easily be mortgaged but in many parts of London may easily cost£100,000 for a 10 or 15-year lease. At the same time, there is the accruing and accrued liability to pay for the building to be put into tenantable repair at the end of the lease, but the provisions for the repair of the block may be vexatious or badly expressed.

This liability for repairs is nowhere near so serious in the case of lessees of houses. A long lessee of a house is the master of his own fortunes when it comes to carrying out the necessary repairs. In addition he has had since 1967 the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act. The tenants of flats are in a totally different position. The landlord will usually be responsible for carrying out repairs and the tenants have only a limited say as to what repairs are carried out, when they are carried out, or at what cost. There are landlords who do net carry out repairs, hoping in this way to persuade their tenants either to surrender their leases or buy long terms. These tenants have to live with the likelihood that, when the repairs are finally carried out, it will be they, the tenants, who will have to foot the bill for the increased cost which will have resulted from the delay. Flat owners do not have —but it is widely recognised that consistency would demand that they should have —a fair claim to be given the same right to enfranchise as was given to long residential tenants of houses under the 1967 Act. So the clause is to be regretted also because it takes away rights from flat owners when fairness and consistency of legislation suggest that their rights should be protected and enhanced rather than diminished.

I have explained that this clause would not come into effect for nine years, but for nine years it would add to the problems facing flat owners. I ask my noble friend to take it away and not to proceed further with it. I put it to him that this clause is deeply offensive to many flat owners. To omit it now might be a prudent exercise in damage limitation. The clause is an irrelevance. It is no more than a theoretical exercise in free market economics. It achieves nothing of present significance beyond the creation of ill will and concern and some destabilising of the landlord and tenant relationship.

I know that for some two years a great deal of time and energy has been expended in the department in bringing before us what we have now. But on the other hand, I should like to give the Government an opportunity not to shoot themselves in the foot. After all—and I offer my noble friend this thought—if you are in danger of shooting yourself in the foot, the prudent course is to put the gun away. I suggest that to change into iron boots should be the less preferred course of action. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I fear that if I shot myself in one foot then I might have to shoot myself in the other.

My noble Friend has argued that Clause 178 should be deleted from the Bill, because it will not have any effect until 1999, and well before then legislation should be introduced to reorganise comprehensively the law as it relates to residential leasehold property.

The Government are, of course, well aware of the concerns to which my noble friend referred. The Nugee Committee was set up in 1984 to investigate the problems of leasehold blocks of flats, and its report provided a thorough and useful description of those problems and proposed a range of measures to deal with them.

The Government accepted almost all of the report's recommendations, and they formed the basis of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Residential leaseholders now have a right of first refusal when blocks of flats are sold; they enjoy significantly strengthened rights to consultation over service charges and insurance arrangements; and we have provided them with stronger remedies against inadequate management. These provisions came into force only relatively recently. The Department of the Environment proposes to carry out research into the effects of the legislation next year, and we clearly need to have the results of that before we can decide whether anything more needs to be done.

In addition to this legislation, the Government have accepted the Law Commission's recommendations on the creation of a completely new form of ownership to be known as commonhold. Legislation to give effect to this is being prepared. We do not yet know, however, when the legislation will be introduced. And final decisions on its form, including the question of whether leaseholders should have a right to switch to commonhold against the wishes of their landlord, have still to be taken. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will make an announcement about all this in due course.

Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the prospect of further legislation on leasehold matters is uncertain. Clearly, if such legislation is introduced, it will have to take account of the existing law, including this clause and the related schedule. But I do not believe that these provisions, which are essentially consequential on the introduction of the assured tenancy regime in the Housing Act 1988, should be held on ice until decisions on these wider questions about the future of the leasehold system are taken. For these reasons, we resist my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, I was interested in my noble friend's digression into the history of the Nugee Committee report, the 1967 Act and the Government's acceptance of the idea of commonhold. I do not think that they have very much to do with the issue before the House tonight, but, in the absence of any support and in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 10 [Security of Tenure on Ending of Long Residential Tenancies]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 178 and 179: Page 253, leave out lines 13 and 14. Page 253, line 44, at end insert— (""undisputed terms" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 11(1A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical amendments to Schedule 10. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 179A: Page 255, line 6, at end insert ("and specifies particulars of any such ground or grounds").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have received advice from SHAC as regards this and the following group of amendments. I should say that we are interested in exploring whether in the transfer of long leasehold tenants to the assured tenancy regime there is any possibility of tenants dropping, or being pushed, through the net and out of protection altogether.

This amendment affects paragraph 4(6) of Schedule 10, which deals with the termination of tenancies by the landlord on various specified grounds. When a landlord wants to recover possession from a long leaseholder holding over after the lease has ended, a notice must be served terminating any continuing tenancy which has arisen by virtue of the schedule. The notice must inform the former leaseholder about the ground, or grounds, of possession the landlord proposes to rely upon in court.

There is, however, no requirement that the notice to resume possession must state details or particulars of the grounds; for example, the amount of rent arrears or the particular obligation of the tenancy which has been broken. The amendment ensures that particulars of any grounds raised are stated in the notice.

The requirement to give details of any grounds alleged applies where a landlord serves a notice seeking possession against an assured tenant under the Housing Act 1988. There is no reason in principle that I can see why that should not apply also where a landlord seeks possession against a former long leaseholder under the new regime. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

My Lords, having been rather lukewarm over the previous amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, I have to say that there is a great deal to be said for this series of amendments.

12 midnight.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, as my noble friend has said, the amendment relates to the form of the notice that the landlord must serve if he wants to secure possession of the dwellinghouse when the long tenancy comes to an end. Under paragraph 4(5)(b) the notice must state the ground or grounds on which he proposes to apply to the courts for possession.

As with many other aspects of Schedule 10, paragraph 4(5)(b) mirrors the equivalent provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954—in this case Section 4(3)(b). That provision does not require particulars of the ground to be stated.

I appreciate that, following pressure in the House during the passage of the Housing Act 1988, a provision requiring particulars to be stated was written into the provisions relating to notice of proceedings for possession of dwelling houses let on assured tenancies. As I have said, the general precedent that we have followed in Schedule 10 is that of the 1954 Act rather than the 1988 Act.

I should point out, however, that under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 my right honourable friend is required to prescribe the form that a notice to resume possession must take. The prescribed form will require the landlord to state the particulars of each ground under which he intends to seek possession, so the point that the amendment addresses wiil be fully met, albeit by secondary rather than primary legislation.

I hope that in the light of that reassurance my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, I am considerably reassured by what my noble friend said. I should still have thought that the Government could give consideration to looking not so far back as the 1954 Act when they come to deal with this point. The precedent in the 1988 Act is clear and it should be written on to the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance. I shall read what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments No. 180 to 192: Page 258, leave out lines 51 to 53 and insert ("and"). Page 259, line 5, at end insert— ("(1A) Where, under paragraph 10(2) above, a tenant's notice is referred to a rent assessment committee, any reference in this Schedule to the undisputed terms is a reference to those terms (if any) which —

1. (a) are proposed in the landlord's notice or the tenant's notice; and
2. (b) do not relate to the amount of the rent; and
3. (c) are not disputed terms.").

Page 259, line 14, leave out ("agreed") and insert ("undisputed"). Page 259, line 19, leave out ("agreed") and insert ("undisputed"). Page 259, line 23, leave out ("agreed") and insert ("undisputed"). Page 259, line 38, leave out ("agreed") and insert ("undisputed"). page 259, line 41, leave out ("agreed") and insert ("undisputed"). Page 260, line 3, after ("(a)") insert ("if the committee decide that there are no disputed terms and that there is no dispute as to the rent, paragraph 10(2)(b) above shall apply as if the notice had not been so referred; (b) where paragraph (a) above does not apply then, so far as concerns the amount of the rent under the tenancy, if there is a dispute as to the rent"). Page 260, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("and"). Page 260, line 9, leave out ("(b) the agreed") and insert— ("(c) where paragraph (a) above does not apply and there are disputed terms, then, so far as concerns the subject matter of those terms, the terms determined by the committee under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be term s of the tenancy and, so far as concerns any undisputed terms, those"). Page 260, line 10, after ("shall") insert ("also"). Page 260, line 35, leave out from first ("of ") to ("are") in line 36 and insert ("paragraph 11 above, what the disputed terms"). Page 260, leave out lines 41 to 45.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 192A: Page 263, line 28, after second ("of ") insert ("or includes").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to amend paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 10. The paragraph is designed to ensure that leaseholders do not lose security of tenure on the expiry of a long lease by taking periodic tenancies at a low rent. Paragraph 16 provides that whatever the length of the new tenancy, it will be deemed to be a long tenancy if the property let under the new tenancy consists of the whole or any part of the property let under the previous tenancy.

It is easy to envisage a situation where a landlord approaches a tenant and says, "If you will give up that inconvenient bedroom, you will have a new lease and you will have this larger bedroom". If the tenant, who will no doubt not ask for or receive advice, accepts that kind offer of a new tenancy, the protection will go entirely. The amendment seeks to extend the existing safeguard contained in the Bill to cover that situation. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, as my noble friend has said, the amendment relates to paragraph 16 of Schedule 10, which deals with new tenancies at a low rent granted to the same tenant on the ending of a long tenancy at a low rent. In essence, paragraph 16 is aimed at ensuring that such tenants do not lose the protection afforded by the schedule if they take on such new tenancies.

As I said in Committee, Schedule 10 is modelled closely on the provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that it will replace. Paragraph 16 of the schedule is the direct equivalent of Section 19 of the 1954 Act. Section 19 also uses the phrase, the whole or any part of the property", I am not aware that the sort of problems which my noble friend has referred to have arisen in relation to Section 19. If there have been no problems where landlords are faced with Rent Act tenancies at so called "fair rents" —artificially suppressed below market level —why should they arise under the schedule, where landlords will be able to charge market rents once assured tenancies are created?

There are three further points that I should make. The first is that under the schedule tenants who remain in occupation after their long tenancies are brought to an end will do so as assured tenants paying market rents. Since landlords will be receiving a reasonable return on their investment, it is hard to see why they should be determined to avoid such tenancies arising.

The second is that I find the whole notion of landlords of blocks of flats having spare rooms sitting empty which they can add to flats when they bring long tenancies to an end not entirely possible. The third is that people buying property on long leases will almost always employ solicitors to handle the transaction. They are therefore much more likely to seek legal advice when their landlord offers them a new tenancy than are ordinary protected or assured tenants. Their advisers will be able to tell them if the landlord's proposals are unsatisfactory. I hope that in the light of these comments my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, my noble friend seems to assure the House that there are no loopholes here to be closed. I shall obviously have to read what he has said in order to see whether I agree. Nevertheless, if there are loopholes, it may be the case that paragraph 16 is in similar terms to the equivalent provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. But that does not seem to me to be a good reason for not blocking a loophole if one exists. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 192B: Page 264, line 6, after ("17") insert ("(1)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 allows landlords and leaseholders to agree prior to the termination of the long lease on the grounds of a future tenancy that there shall be a future tenancy at a rent other than a low rent and otherwise on terms to be agreed between the parties, as I understand it.

There is no requirement that the new tenancy must be an assured tenancy or that it may not be an assured shorthold or that the mandatory grounds for possession cannot be brought into play by the landlord. As drafted, paragraph 17 opens up the possibility that landlords may seek to persuade tenants to take on new tenancies on the expiry of long leases which will have no or very little security of tenure because, for example, they are shortholds.

To create an assured shorthold tenancy, or to use grounds 1 to 5 of the mandatory grounds for possession against assured tenants, notice must be given to the tenant before the grant of the new tenancy. It need not be given before the parties enter into the agreement to create the new tenancy. For example, the parties could agree that a weekly tenancy be granted to the tenant when the long lease ends. Subsequently, shortly before the tenancy is actually granted, the landlord may give to the tenant written notice that the property may in future be required as the only or main home of himself or his spouse. By so doing he makes this mandatory ground available in future to himself.

Similarly, the parties could agree that the term at the end of the long lease should be the grant of a one-year lease. Subsequently, shortly before the tenancy is actually granted the landlord can give the tenant a notice that the new tenancy is to be a shorthold, thus ensuring that the tenant can be evicted without any grounds for possession being proved once the one-year fixed term has expired. I feel sure that these possibilities were not within the contemplation of the Government when this schedule was drafted. The amendment seeks to preserve the leaseholder's security by ensuring that the new tenancy must be an assured tenancy which is not a shorthold and that the landlord cannot bring into play the mandatory grounds for possession, I to 5. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that my noble friend also spoke to Amendments Nos. 192C and 192D. These amendments relate to paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 which disapplies the schedule in cases where the landlord and tenant agree to the grant of a new tenancy which is not at a low rent. If the parties agree such a tenancy, they obviously do not need to invoke the provisions of the schedule aimed at establishing one.

As my noble friend has said, under paragraph 17 of the schedule as drafted, the landlord and tenant can agree to an assured or an assured shorthold tenancy. But the crucial word is "agree". If the tenant does not want to accept the tenancy that the landlord offers him, he is free to refuse it and will then retain the protection afforded by Schedule 10. If the landlord wants to create an assured shorthold, he has to serve the prescribed shorthold notice before the tenancy is entered into. That notice states clearly that the landlord may have the right to repossession when the fixed term expires and it tells tenants to get advice if they do not understand it. So tenants will have clear notice of what they are being offered.

As I said in relation to the previous amendment, long leaseholders will almost certainly have employed solicitors when they entered into their leases and are therefore likely to take legal advice when the term date approaches and the landlord starts to take steps to set up a new arrangement. I do not believe, therefore, that tenants will be cheated out of their rights in the way that has been suggested.

My noble friend also argued that paragraph 17 should be amended so that the schedule's provisions will be disapplied only if the landlord offers an assured tenancy in respect of which possession will not be recoverable under grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act. Grounds 2 to 5 are clearly irrelevant to the case where the dwelling-house has previously been let on a long tenancy. Ground 1 is very unlikely to be relevant as the landlord would have had to have occupied the dwellinghouse as his only or principal home at some time before the long tenancy began. As my noble friend will appreciate, in most cases the landlord will be a company or a trust rather than an individual and could not therefore satisfy this requirement. But if such a case were to arise, the landlord could only be confident that he would be able to use ground 1 if he served written notice before the tenancy was entered into. So again the tenant will have notice of what is proposed and does not have to agree if he does not like it.

I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, I wish to clarify something between myself and my noble friend. In dealing with mandatory ground 1 he said that on the rare occasions, as he put it, where the landlord was not a company or a trust and ground 1 might apply—that is to say, the notice might be given that the resumption of possession was needed for the landlord's family—the tenant would have to have notice of this. The point I have been making is that the tenant would receive the notice after the agreement had been reached to have the extended term or the new tenancy at the end of the long lease. So it does not appear to me to be helpful to suggest that the tenant gets this notice when my complaint has been that he gets the notice too late.

My noble friend suggested that in most cases a tenant in the situation we are describing would have the benefit of a solicitor's advice. However, speaking as a solicitor myself I do not think one should legislate on the basis that a solicitor's advice Nv!1 be obtained on all occasions. However, my noble friend had a lot to say about the amendment and I shall obviously need to read very carefully what he has said when Hansard is published. Unless he has any further comments to make on the question of the notice in connection with mandatory ground 1, I beg leave to—

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, speaking with the leave of the House, notice would have to be served before the assured tenancy is created, as I understand it.

Lord Coleraine

My Lords, my point is that the landlord can agree with the tenant that at the end of the long lease another tenancy will be created. The trouble is that there is a period between the agreement and the creation of the new tenancy in which the landlord can spring upon the tenant the fact that mandatory ground 1 may be applied. Nevertheless, I am sure that we shall look at the question again if need be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 192C and 192D not moved.]

12.15 a.m.

Schedule 11 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 193: Page 269, line 8, at end insert—

("The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

For paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (expenses of children's panel members) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"8. A local authority may pay—

1. (a) to a member or possible member of the children's panel;
2. (b) to a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee

such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State; and he may determine differently in relation to different cases or classes of case.".)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 193A: Page 269, line 15, at end insert—

("Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.

15A. In section 2(1) of that Act, after "a social services committee" there shall be inserted "or sub-committee".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 193A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B.

With the leave of the House, I should like to make a technical change to tidy up Amendment No. 193A, on the advice of parliamentary counsel. Where it reads: 15A. In section 2(1) of that Act, under the heading: "Local Authority Social Services Act 1970", it would clearly be proper to say: 15A. In section 2(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, after 'a social services committee' there shall be inserted 'or sub-committee'.

In other words, instead of "that Act" it should read: the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970". I should like to move the amendment with that alteration to it.

At Committee it was agreed, in connection with my Amendment No. I 84ZB, that it was right that local authorities should follow the very sensible and practical practice of appointing all of their committees and sub-committees at the first meeting of the council in each municipal year., instead of pretending that the sub-committees are appointed by the committees and leaving it till later in the year so that nobody knows whether they are a member of a committee or not. The three amendments tidy up aspects of committee appointment which we neglected to deal with at Committee stage. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained fully the purpose of the amendments. There are some minor drafting changes which we would wish to make at a later stage. In the meantime we are happy to accept the amendments as a useful extension of the provisions which the noble Lord introduced at Committee.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I thought that I had made the drafting change, on the advice of parliamentary counsel. However, I am happy to move the amendment on whatever terms are acceptable.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194: Page 269, line 33, at end insert — (". In section 94(5)(b) of that Act (allowances not to be treated as pecuniary interests), after the word "below" there shall be inserted the words "or under any scheme made by virtue of section (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 195: Page 269, line 33, at end insert — ("18A. In subsection (6) of section 97 of the Local Government Act 1972 (exclusion of disability from speaking and voting by reason of small shareholdings), for £1,000 there shall be substituted £5,000.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rippon, I should like to move Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, had taken great care to ensure that I would be here to move that amendment. I take deep offence at this "insult".

Lord Monson

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, had not taken any care whatsoever to ensure that I was here. However, I was on the point of leaping to my feet to move his amendment in the absence of anyone else rising to do so. It is a very sensible amendment. The retail price index has increased a good deal more than five fold since 1972, whichever month in that year one happens to choose. The amendment is therefore not only logical and sensible but, if anything, somewhat modest. I am delighted that the Government have moved it for us.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B: Page 270, line 3, leave out ("and") Page 270, line 6, at end insert— ("(c) in subsection (4), after "may appoint a committee" there shall be inserted "or a sub-committee; and (d) in paragraph (b) of subsection (4), before "may appoint there shall be inserted "(in the case of a committee)" ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 196: Page 270, line 6, at end insert — (". Sections 173 and 173A of that Act (attendance allowance and financial loss allowance) shall be amended as follows—

1. (a) for the words "local authority", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted "parish or community council";
2. (b) in subsection (3) of each of those sections, for the word "authority" there shall be substituted "council"; and
1532
3. (c) for the words "body to which this section applies" in subsection (4) of section 173 there shall be substituted "parish or community council".

In section 175 of that Act (allowances for conferences and meetings)— (a) in subsection (I) (allowances payable), for the words from "allowances in the nature of onwards there shall be substituted "allowances in the nature of an attendance allowance and an allowance for travelling and subsistence, as they think fit. (1A) Payments made under subsection (1) above shall be of such reasonable amounts as the body in question may determine in a particular case or class of case but shall not exceed—

1. (a) in the case of payments of an allowance in the nature of an attendance allowance, such amounts as may be specified in or determined under regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) in the case of payments of an allowance in the nature of an allowance for travel and subsistence in respect of a conference or meeting held in the United Kingdom, such amounts as may be specified under section 174 above for the corresponding allowance under that section;

and regulations made by the Secretary of State may make it a condition of any payment mentioned in paragraph (a) above that, in the financial year to which the payment would relate, the aggregate amount which the body in question has paid or is already liable to pay in respect of any prescribed allowance or allowances does not exceed such maximum amount as may be specified in or determined under the regulations. (b) in subsection (3B) (conferences to which section applies in relation to joint boards and committees), for the words "such body as is mentioned in section 177(1)(d) or (e) below" there shall be substituted the words "body which is a joint board, joint authority or other combined body all the members of which are representatives of local authorities". —(1) Subsection 177 of that Act shall be amended as follows. (2) For sub section (1) (bodies to which sections 173 and 175 apply) there shall be substituted the following subsection— (1) Subject to paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980 (application of certain allowances to appeal committees), sections 174 and 175 above apply —

1. (a) to the bodies specified in section 19 (1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, except—
1. (i) the Common Council;
2. (ii) a body established pursuant to an order under section 67 of the Local Government Act 1985 (successors to residuary bodies); and
3. (iii) without prejudice to section 265 below, the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
2. (b) to any prescribed body on which a body to which those sections apply by virtue of paragraph (a) above is represented; and
3. (c) to any parish or community council."

(3) For subsection (2) (meaning of "approved duties") there shall be substituted the following subsection— (2) In sections 173 to 176 above 'approved duty' in relation to a member of a body, means such duties as may be specified in or determined under regulations made by the Secretary of State. (4) In subsection (4) (members not excluded from discussion of allowances), at the end there shall be inserted the words "or under any scheme made by virtue of section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989". In section 178(2) of that Act (regulations with respect to allowances), for the words "177 or 177A" there shall be substituted "or 177".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 197 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 198 to 200: Page 270, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("(recording)") in line 41 and insert— (".In section 38(4)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (allowances not to be treated as pecuniary interests) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or under any scheme made by virtue of section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. In section 47 of that Act (allowances for conferences and meetings)— (a) in subsection (1) (allowances payable), for the words from "allowances in the nature of" onwards there shall be substituted "allowances in the nature of an attendance allowance and an allowance for travel and subsistence, as they think fit. (1A) payments made under subsection (1) above shall be of such reasonable amounts as the body in question may determine in a particular case or class of case but shall not exceed—

1. (a) in the case of payments of an allowance in the nature of an attendance allowance, such amounts as may be specified in or determined under regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) in the case of payments of an allowance in the nature of an allowance for travel and subsistence in respect of a conference or meeting held in the United Kingdom, such amounts as may be specified under section 46 above for the corresponding allowance under that section;

and regulations made by the Secretary of State may make it a condition of any payment mentioned in paragraph (a) above that, in the financial year to which the payment would relate, the aggregate amount which the body in question has paid or is already liable to pay in respect of any prescribed allowance or allowances does not exceed such maximum amount as may be specified in or determined under the regulations. (b) in subsection (3A) (conferences to which section applies in relation to joint boards and committees), for the words "such body as is mentioned in section 49(1)(c) or (d) below" there shall be substituted the words "body which is a joint board, joint authority or other combined body all the members of which are representatives of local authorities". —(1) Section 49 of that Act shall be amended as follows. (2) For subsection (1) (bodies to which sections 46 and 47 apply) there shall be substituted the following subsection — (1) Sections 46 and 47 above apply—

1. (a) to the bodies specified in section 19(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; and
2. (b) to any prescribed body on which a body to which those sections apply by virtue of paragraph (a) above is represented.".

(3) For subsection (2) (meaning of "approved duties") there shall be substituted the following subsection — (2) In sections 46 to 48 above "approved duty", in relation to a member of a body, means such duties as may be specified in or determined under regulations made by the Secretary of State.". (4) In subsection (4) (members not excluded from discussion of allowances), at the end there shall be inserted the words "or under any scheme made by virtue of section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989". In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to that Act"). Page 271, line 22, at end insert— ("In section 4 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (valuation appeal committees) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (7A) There shall be paid to members of a valuation appeal committee and to members of a local valuation panel such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State"."). Page 271, line 23, leave out ("the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975") and insert ("that Act").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 200A not moved.]

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 201: Page 272, line 10, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 12 and insert ("(1) after the word "officer" there shall be inserted "or other person".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment applies to registers of local authority loan instruments maintained under Clause 43 and certain standard provisions relating to registers. They follow the corresponding provisions in the Companies Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 202: Page 273, line 6, at end insert —

("The Education (Scotland) Act 1980

In Schedule Al to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, for paragraph 9 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"9. There shall be paid to members of an appeal committee constituted in accordance with this Schedule such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 202ZA not moved.]

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 202A: Page 274, line 31, at end insert— ("51A. In section 82 of the Housing Act 1985 (security of tenure) at the beginning of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (2A) below". (2) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection— (2A) Where the landlord obtains an order for the possession of the dwelling house and the court has under section 85(3) imposed conditions on the stay or suspension of execution of the order or on the postponement of the date of possession, the tenancy ends on the date of execution of the order"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the proceedings an amendment in comparable terms was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, but it was rejected by the Government. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those with suspended possession orders against them do not lose their rights as secure tenants until eviction, rather than when the suspended order is broken. On previous occasions we have drawn on the experience and the policy of the London borough of Redbridge, which was one of denying a right to consultation to those with suspended possession orders against them in connection with a proposed voluntary transfer to a newly created housing association.

I must tell the House that I am now advised that on 23rd October—in other words, at the beginning of this week—at a meeting of that council's housing committee, officers admitted that the right to consultation had been denied to all those with outstanding possession orders against them. They did not know in the case of specific individuals whether the suspended possession order had been broken; nor had they considered whether in the case of specific individuals a new tenancy might have been granted by the payment and acceptance of rent after the suspended order had been broken. On that occasion, the committee decided to withdraw those properties from the sale where there were outstanding possession orders and to consider what to do in respect of those properties at a later time.

I am sure that both the Minister and the House are aware that we are dealing with people in wretched circumstances who should be given not only the benefit of the doubt but every consideration in those circumstances. The purpose of the amendment is to redress that situation. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, where there is a secure tenancy and the landlord has obtained an order for possession which has been suspended on certain conditions, the tenancy comes to an end on the day when the tenant first commits a breach of the conditions. The effect of the amendment would be to cause a secure tenancy to end on the date of execution of the order for possession. So the tenant would retain for a longer period the rights and obligations which a secure tenancy implies, such as the right to buy and the right to vote in any ballot about a voluntary transfer of housing stock from a local council to some other landlord.

I believe that the present position is the right one and that this change is both inappropriate and undesirable. If tenants do not fulfil conditions placed on court orders—and those most commonly relate to payment by instalments of rent arrears—we must ask the question whether that group of tenants ought to have the right to buy or the right to vote to change landlord. Could they afford a mortgage or the rent of a different landlord if they cannot meet the debts as required by the court? I would suggest not.

Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that, in the event of a breach, the landlord will immediately apply for the possession order to be executed and, in appropriate circumstances, the conduct of both parties might lead to a new secure tenancy arising. It is difficult to generalise on this point since the behaviour of both parties will vary from case to case. But it has to be recognised that, in some circumstances, the amendment would not have an effect. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to resist the temptation of his amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the Minister invites me to resist the temptation of my own amendment. That is a difficult process at any time and certainly at twenty-five minutes past midnight.

The Minister makes a fair point that one who is aware of all the circumstances, all the rights and obligations, in effect has his eyes wide open and knows what happens when he takes steps which put him on the wrong side of the law. In fact, I mentioned what had happened in the London borough of Redbridge only this week. I think that that is very significant in the context in which I raised the matter.

But I am sure that the Minister will not give way on this matter tonight. He said that it was right and proper that the present situation should prevail. I take the opposite view. However, I shall not press the issue tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, perhaps I may revert for a moment to Amendment No. 198. I put it in the terms of the amendment as printed. In fact there is a printing error. The amendment should read: Page 270, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("(recording)") in line 32". It should not read "line 41".

With that correction I hope that your Lordships will allow acceptance of the amendment to stand.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 202AA: Page 274, line 31, at end insert— ("51A. In section 87 of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualified to succeed tenant) in subsection (b) after the words "resided with the tenant" there shall be inserted "(whether in the dwelling-house or elsewhere)".")

The noble Lord said: I raise this matter again as I did in Committee. It deals with the matter of trading down where council tenants perhaps living in property with rather more accommodation than they need give up possession and move to a smaller property.

In this amendment one seeks to make sure that those who happen to live with that particular tenant do not lose any of their rights. In rejecting the amendment previously, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on behalf of the Government, said that the amendment would enable a partner who had never lived in the property to succeed to the tenancy of a tenant who had been absent from home for a year or who was retaining it as his principal private home. He said that it would open the door to abuse, undermining the principle that tenancies should be allocated so far as possible on the basis of need. With respect, I suggest that that is not the case.

The person wishing to succeed to the tenancy would still have to satisfy the landlord or the court that he or she was living in the property and that it was his or her only or main home at the time of the tenant's death. Accordingly it is hard to see how there could be any more room for abuse than there is under the current law or that the principle of allocating tenancies on the basis of need would be undermined. The potential successor would also have to satisfy the landlord or the court that he or she had lived with the tenant in the 12 months up to the tenant's death, the only difference being that it need not be at the property itself. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, tabled a similar amendment during Committee stage. He will not be surprised to learn that my view is the same now as it was then. The effect of Amendment No. 202AA would be that, to succeed to a secure tenancy, a member of the tenant's family no longer has to reside in the dwelling 12 months prior to the tenant's death but merely has to have resided anywhere with the tenant for a minimum of 12 months.

As drafted, the amendment would enable a partner who had never lived in the property to succeed to the secure tenancy of a tenant who had been absent from the home for a year while retaining it as his principal home. I am afraid that that would open the door to abuse and would lead to minimal conditions for justifying succession to a secure tenancy. These in my view would be too slight. And I believe that, in needy cases—say, where children were involved—the landlord would allow the family to stay on.

In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, also will be able to resist the temptation of his amendment.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, it seems to me that I heard the same remarks about a week ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.30 a.m.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 202AB: Page 274, line 31, at end insert— ("51A. In section 89 of the Housing Act 1985 (succession to periodic tenancy) after subsection 2(b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph— (2)(c) of two or more spouses of the tenant such one of them as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no such agreement, be selected by the court."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at least on these Benches we try! The amendment seeks to remove the distinction between spouses and cohabitees, thus allowing the cohabitee to succeed to the secure tenancy without having to clock up the minimum period of 12 months. It also means that the cohabitee of an unmarried tenant would be given preference over other members of the tenant's family in the decision about who can succeed. Where two or more people claimed to be the tenant's spouse, the court would select who was to succeed in the event of a dispute. I raised the matter earlier but we have now concluded the discussion about the courts.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, stated: We have no evidence that this situation has presented a problem for secure tenancies in the past".

Whatever may have been the position in the past, cohabitation is clearly a growing phenomenon and it is only right that the law should not discriminate against cohabitees in this area, as it does not do so in deciding succession rights of assured tenancies under the Government's own Housing Act 1988. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the amendment would provide for a dispute between two or more spouses over succession to a secure tenancy to be settled by the courts. I am not aware that there have been disputes over successions to secure tenancies. It is not an issue that has been raised with us by local authority associations. I can see that the courts would be the natural forum to settle disputes but I cannot see in practice that we shall need to give them this extra duty. I am of course prepared to look at any evidence of problems that the noble Lord may care to send me. But I am afraid that at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, with that invitation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 202B: Page 275, line 2, at end insert— ("53A. In section 131 of the Housing Act 1985 (limits on amount of discount), there shall be added after sub-section (3) the following subsection— 3A) Any determination under sub-section (3) above shall specify that, where the landlord is a registered housing association and the dwelling has been provided either fully or in part by private finance, the discount shall not reduce the selling price by more than the total cost of the provision of the dwelling." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to protect the position of a non-charitable housing association which transfers one of its secure tenants or one of its assured tenants with a preserved right to buy to a property provided partly or fully by private finance should that tentant subsequently exercise right to buy. The amendment was withdrawn at Committee stage for consideration of the Government's response.

Under Section 35 of the Housing Act 1988 a secure tenant of a housing association who transfers to another property owned by the same association is entitled to retain their secure tenancy. For a non-charitable housing association this also means that the secure tenant retains the right to buy that property at a discount under the Housing Act 1986. Similarly, former public sector secure tenants whose properties are transferred to a housing association retain their preserved right to buy even if they transfer to another property owned by the association.

Changes in the funding regime for housing associations mean that many new properties are provided either wholly by private rather than public funding or by a mixture of public and private funding. Existing provisions to limit the amount of discount available to tenants exercising their right to buy were established prior to any substantial use of private funding by housing associations and prior to transfers of public sector housing stock to other landlords.

The current cost floor rules were drawn up in 1984. The calculation of the cost floor, established to ensure that the discount to which the tenant is entitled does not reduce the selling price of the dwelling below its cost of provision, does not take account of private sector funding. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, stated in Hansard at col. 453 on 11th October that, Costs incurred by the landlord on relevant works are included. In the case of the construction of the dwelling-house, not only the costs of construction but also the costs of site development works and the acquisition of land are to be taken into account. So are major works of improvements". The current Housing Corporation circular, issued in 1985 but still the only guidance to housing associations, is quite clear. It tells associations to exclude from cost floor calculation all cost not funded by public subsidy. This quite clearly excludes the private funding together with associated cost such as deferred interest payments or penalties for early redemption of the loan.

At present housing associations run the risk of facing a substantial underfunded loss unless the existing rules are changed. At present they are very wary of permitting transfers which could result in the exercise of right to buy on mixed or privately-funded property. The amendment would clarify the position which does not seem to be as clear cut as the Minister previously indicated. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the amendment is identical to one moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about which I subsequently wrote to him. As I explained in Committee, a tenant exercising the right to buy is allowed discount only to the extent that it does not reduce the purchase price below the sum of the costs incurred by the landlord in acquiring, building or improving the property. These costs can be summarised, to use the words of the amendment, as the total cost of the provision of the dwelling". The noble Lord has referred to the concern of housing associations about cases where a tenant with the ordinary or preserved right to buy applies to buy a property within the association's stock financed from private sources on terms including penalties for early redemption. The cost of such penalties would be unlikely to count as a cost for the purposes of the cost floor rule. However, it is difficult to see how the rule could reasonably be extended to cover penalties arising under the particular financial arrangements by which the property was funded. It is surely not right to discriminate between tenants on the basis of the particular financial package negotiated by their landlord.

In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will find this an opportunity to resist a temptation.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I was about to say that I was grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, as he has given me no comfort, that would be rather false. At this time of night and at this stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 202C: Page 275, line 2, at end insert— ("53A. In section 113 of the Housing Act 1985 (member of a person's family) in subsection (1)(a) leave out the words "or he and that person live together as husband and wife" and after subsection (2) of that section insert the following subsection— (3) For the purpose of this Part, a person who lives together with another person as his wife or husband shall be treated as his spouse."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to the temptation to move yet another amendment. It seeks to recognise the reality that large numbers of public sector tenants live together as husband and wife although they may not be married. At the moment the state fails to recognise that fact. It is also out of line with the law for Rent Act tenants and assured tenants under the Housing Act 1988. For both groups of private sector tenants the Housing Act 1988 makes no distinction between married people and cohabitees in deciding what rights the person has to accede to a tenancy. The amendment seeks to bring the law in the public sector in line with that for the private sector.

In Committee the Government queried the use of both genders, given that the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that reference to "he" covers both genders. The amendments were modelled on Section 17(4) of the Housing Act 1988 covering the position of succession to assured tenancies which refers to both genders. In any event, the amendment has been re-worded to refer only to the male gender. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 202C would be that a person living with another person as wife or husband would be treated as the spouse. We have no reason to believe that the redefinition within Amendment No. 202C is necessary or desirable. We are not aware that problems have arisen in this connection. However, if the noble Lord would like to send me details of cases I shall be happy to look into them, although I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to do anything about it in this Bill. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, I am tempted to make sure that the noble Lord receives about one hundred letters through the post next week. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 203: Page 279, line 1, at end insert— (". In section 61(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (application of right to buy to tenants under secure tenancies granted after acquisition by landlord of defective dwelling) for "282(3)" there shall be substituted "282(2) or (3)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which remedies an unintended effect made on consolidation of the Scottish housing legislation in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The policy intention behind Section 61(3) of the Act is to ensure that a tenant who had his defective home repurchased by his landlord does not have to meet the two-year qualifying period before he can apply to exercise the right to buy. The provisions as they stand only disapply the waiting period to tenants of non-public sector landlords. This amendment will disapply them also to tenants of public sector landlords. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 204: Page 281, line 20, at end insert— ("(2) At the beginning of subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 38 (4A) below".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 are minor amendments which follow on from Amendment No. 188C which noble Lords agreed in Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 205: Page 281, line 35, after ("above") insert ("so long as the tenancy continues to be held by a body which would have been specified in subsection (1) of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985 if the repeal of provisions of that section effected by this Act had not been made").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 206: Page 282, line 6, at end insert — (". In Schedule 2 to that Act (grounds for possession of dwelling-houses let on assured tenancies) at the end of Ground 6 (landlord intending to demolish or reconstruct) there shall be added the following paragraph — For the purposes of this ground, every acquisition under Part IV of this Act shall be taken to be an acquisition for money or money's worth; and in any case where —

1. (i) the tenancy (in this paragraph referred to as "the current tenancy") was granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who, immediately before it was granted, was a tenant under a tenancy of a different dwelling-house (in this paragraph referred to as "the earlier tenancy"), and
2. (ii) the landlord under the current tenancy is the person who, immediately before that tenancy was granted, was the landlord under the earlier tenancy, and
3. (iii) the condition in paragraph (b) above could not have been fulfilled with respect to the earlier tenancy by virtue of an acquisition under Part IV of this Act (including one taken to be such an acquisition by virtue of the previous operation of this paragraph),

the acquisition of the landlord's interest under the current tenancy shall be taken to have been under that Part and the landlord shall be taken to have acquired that interest after the grant of the current tenancy." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises from a gap which my colleague Simon Hughes MP in the other place raised with the Government when this Bill was in Committee there. It relates to tenants choice landlords who might use ground 6 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act to obtain vacant possession for their tenants. I believe that the Government may have some sympathy for this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has explained the purpose of this amendment, which we are happy to accept.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for their co-operation and I also express my thanks to my colleague Simon Hughes.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 207: Page 282, line 14, at end insert— ("96. In Schedule 18 to that Act (enactments repealed) at the end of paragraph 4 at the end of that Schedule (scope of repeals of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985) there shall be added "and (c) do not have effect in relation to a tenancy while it is a housing association tenancy."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment fulfils an undertaking which my noble friend Lord Caithness gave at Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to consider an amendment about establishing security of tenure for certain types of housing association tenant who might not otherwise have full security.

The amendment which the Government are now bringing forward has been drafted to meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Its effect is to establish that, in cases where a housing association tenancy under the pre-1988 Act regime is not also a secure tenancy, it may nonetheless become a secure tenancy if it subsequently meets the normal conditions for such a tenancy.

This is a small but useful measure to deal with a minor anomaly in the existing legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the point to the Government's attention and I hope that your Lordships will agree to the amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I am grateful not only to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his assurances but also the Minister and his advisers for giving effect to my suggestion, although perhaps going on a different route to that which we proposed but securing the same purpose. I assure the Minister that the National Federation of Housing Associations has asked me to convey to the Minister that it is very grateful for the notice which has been taken of what it sees as a genuine concern. We are grateful to the Minister for doing what he has done.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 208: Page 282, line 14, at end insert —

("The Social Security Act 1989 . In paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8 to the Social Security Act 1989 (interpretation of provisions relating to incapacity for work), for paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of "councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

1. "(a) section 173 or 177 of the Local Government Act 1972 or a scheme made by virtue of section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 173(4) of that Act of 1972 or in section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) (2) of that Act of 1989; or
2. (b) section 49 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or a scheme made by virtue of section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, other than such an allowance as is mentioned section (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) (2) of that Act of 1989".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 12 [Enactments repealed]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 209 to 212: Page 285, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

		("In section 177, subsection (2A) and in subsection (3), the words "(but not for the purposes of subsection (2A) above)".
		Section 177A.
		In section 178, in subsection (1), the words "and 177A".").

Page 285, line 27, column 3, at end insert—

("section 265A(1)(g).").

Page 285, line 50, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 45 and 45A. Section 49(1A). Section 49A.").

Page 286, line 23, at end insert—

("1975 c. 30.

The Local Government (Scotland)Act 1975.

In Schedule 6, in Part II,(Scotland) Act 1975. paragraph 46.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 212A: Page 286, line 29, at end insert—

("1975 c. 76.

The Local Land Charges Act 1975

In section 9, in subsection (2),the words from the beginning to "in writing, and".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 173ZA. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 213 to 215: Page 286, line 37, at end insert—

("1980 c. 20.

The Education Act 1980.

In Schedule 2, in paragraph 4, the words 173(4) and".").

Page 286, line 39, at end insert—

("1980 c. 65.

The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Section 26(1) to (3).").

Page 287, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 14, paragraphs 19 and 20.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 215A: Page 289, leave out line 45.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 173B. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

12.45 a.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 215B: Page 289, line 49, column 3, after ("notices)"") insert ("and the word "366", in paragraph 2(2)(b) the word "366").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No.215C: Page 289, line 57, column 3, at end insert ("; and in paragraph 8(1) the word "366").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, too, has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 216: Page 290, line 16, at end insert—

("1980 c. 10.

The Local Government Act 1986.

Section 11.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 216ZA: Page 290, line 31, column 3 at end insert— ("Schedule 20, paragraph 10(3)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the Housing (Scotland) Act, on which I am such a noted expert. It is brought to our attention by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The problem which they have identified relates to the repurchasing of defective housing by the local authority from which the tenant purchaser has already bought the property.

It seems somewhat contrary to Amendment No. 203, which has just been agreed and which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne. But the problem which has been identified is that if a local authority repurchases defective housing from a tenant purchaser, Clause 9(1) of Schedule 20 to the Housing (Scotland) Act provides that the tenant purchaser should get, in effect, 95 per cent. of its defect-free value. So far so good. What then happens is that, under Section 282 of the 1987 Act, the former purchaser may, if he or she wishes, in addition to receiving 95 per cent. of the defect-free value be given a secure tenancy of the house when it is sold back to the local authority, or may be given secure tenancy of a similar property if the council subsequently has to demolish the original property. The third twist is that, if the council puts further resources into remedying the defects, the tenant is free to reapply to buy the house or a replacement house at the full discount.

This appears to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to be anomalous, and the amendment would ensure that, where a property is not offered back to the authority with vacant possession, the repurchase price can be adjusted by the local authority or the district valuer taking into account this equivalent to a sitting tenancy. I beg to move.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorn

My Lords, I cannot accept this amendment, which is contrary to a central principle of the housing defect legislation. That principle has always been that eligible owners should be offered repurchase at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value so that they receive, broadly speaking, the price they might have expected to get on selling their house had the house not turned out to be defective. So, in these circumstances, the amount an owner receives in excess of the defective value should be seen as compensation.

The principle was discussed during the passage of the housing defects legislation, along with the proposal in that legislation to offer a secure tenancy to the former owner. The question of discounting the price paid to the owner who wishes to remain as a secure tenant was also raised, but the main argument against such a discount is that, while the majority of former owners would want to buy another property in the open market following repurchase, some would find it difficult to do so. This could be for a number of reasons. For example, traditional houses often have higher values than those of non-traditional construction; former owners might also have to repay part of their right-to-buy discount, or any outstanding mortgage debts and then not find it easy to take out a new mortgage; for example, because of their age. As for any existing tenant, it was felt that it would be wrong for former owners to lose their security of tenure as a result of the housing defects statutory provisions. Their position is therefore preserved, and I see no reason to remove this right. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sure that the Scottish local authorities who were concerned about this matter will read very carefully what the noble Earl has said and, pending such reconsideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 216A to 220: Page 291, line 2, leave out ("(2)") and insert (", in subsection (2),"). Page 291, line 3, at end insert ("and subsection (3),"). Page 291, line 16, at end insert—

("In section 140(2) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e).").

Page 291, line 16, at end insert—

("In section 143(4) the words "57 or" ").

Page 291, line 18, after ("2,") insert ("in paragraph 2(2)(m), the words from "and" to the end."). Page 291, line 28, after ("9,") insert ("in paragraph 2(2)(h), the words from "and" to the end.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 187 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 221: Page 168, line 9, after ("140") insert ("[contingency planning and co-ordination in respect of emergencies or disasters]").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 222: Page 168, line 21, after ("147") insert ("(charges: temporary traffic signs)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 171, to which your Lordships have already agreed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 223 and 224: Line 18, leave out from ("grants") to ("to") in line 19. Line 22, after ("to';') insert ("and planning by").

On Question, amendments agreed to.