Lords Sitting of 20 May 1993

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

Plutonium: Air Transport Standards
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What developments there have been since the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Safe Transport of Radioactive Material in 1988 that United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Standards on the safe transport of plutonium by air should be brought into line, and why they are still so different that aircraft conforming to IAEA standards are not permitted to overfly the United States.
The Minster of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, several IAEA technical meetings have been held on this issue, and proposals for higher packaging standards and a more severe test regime will be put forward for inclusion in the next issue of the transport regulations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer, but does he also recall that at the meeting to which he has just referred the Japanese made it clear that they had been receiving quantities of plutonium over a period of years? Why is it that the Japanese are ready publicly to acknowledge the receipt of, I think, 13 separate shipments of plutonium from this country over a long period whereas the Government apparently seek to conceal that fact from Members of this House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementary question is very different from that on the Order Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I may make so bold as to dispute that point, what we are talking about is the transport of plutonium, which is a very dangerous substance, and plutonium is plutonium whether it is transported to Japan or to the United States of America or from Germany or anywhere else. The question is a simple one: cannot the noble Earl say why this House has been denied information that is available to the Japanese Diet and to the Vienna Conference but which is concealed year after year by the Government from this House? The simple question is: why?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's second supplementary question is still different from that on the Order Paper. The Question on the Order Paper relates to what progress has been made following the advice of ACTRAM (the Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive
1846
Material) to see whether the difference between the IAEA's standards and the American standards could be narrowed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the point raised by my noble friend is very germane to this Question? However, if the Minister chooses not to reply to it, that is within his gift. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to his own reply on the last occasion that this question was raised. On 22nd April, he said, referring to my noble friend:
"The noble Lord should cast his mind back to the ACTRAM report of 1988. It said that the matter should be investigated to see whether the disparities between American standards and IAEA standards should be focused on with a view to bringing them closer together".—[Official Report, 22/4/93; col. 1708.]
Is not five years rather a long time in which to come to any conclusions? Within what sort of timescale would the Minister advise the House that the next issue of transport regulations is likely to come before us for consideration?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementaries are highly relevant. Even as we speak today there is a meeting in Vienna of the second technical committee for the revision of the IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material. It is considering a report, which it hopes will be published, on the air transport of radioactive material in large quantities or high activity, so discussion is taking place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, yes, but will the Minister give some indication as to when the discussions will come to a conclusion and when we can expect some action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Standing Advisory Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material has considered when revision should be made and recommends that major revisions should be made every 10 years. Therefore, what can be agreed by the IAEA will be scheduled for publication in 1996.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that many of us on this side of the House do not accept his thesis that my noble friend's supplementary question was not relevant to the issue that was raised in his Question? Is he surprised that some of us feel very critical that the Minister denies to the House answers to questions that are quite properly put to him?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have never tried to deny an answer which is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper, but I believe that the supplementary question that was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I have heard him claim "irrelevance" at least as often as all the other government spokesmen put together? Might he not adduce from that that he should get some wider briefings in future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that everybody who has the honour to speak at this Dispatch Box gets the widest possible briefing relevant to the Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although I accept that the noble Earl is entitled to refuse to answer the question if he so chooses and to decide that in his opinion it is not relevant, since the amount of plutonium transported to Japan is sufficient to manufacture some 70 nuclear bombs are we not entitled to know a little bit about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like me to write to him on that particular point, I undertake to do so—alternatively, he might wish to table such a Question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Minister knows the answer, why can he not give it? It is entirely relevant.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was a different question, and not related to that on the Order Paper.

Royal Naval Reserve: Future 3.7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government: What are their plans for the future of the Royal Naval Reserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Royal Naval Reserve will continue to provide a highly valued contribution to our defence capability. Work is continuing on the future role of the reserves and we hope to announce our proposals soon.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there are widespread rumours to the effect that all 23 of the RNR's sea-training centres are to be closed? If that is true—or even if it is not—will my noble friend undertake to consult widely before implementing any such draconian closures?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, even at the insistence of my noble friend it would be wrong for me to anticipate the results of that review. However, I think that I can certainly anticipate them enough to be able to say that those rumours, of which I am well aware, are very wide of the mark. We greatly value the sea-going role of the RNR, and the value that we place on it has been taken into consideration during the review. There has been wide consultation, particularly with officers of the RNR and members of the TAVRA council—that is, the council of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations—during the past few months.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, on the basis that the Royal Naval Reserve—or part of it at least—uses Rosyth naval dockyard, if I give the Minister a firm assurance that I will not tell anyone else, just
1848
between the two of us, can he tell me if Rosyth naval dockyard is to be awarded the Trident nuclear refitting contract?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, even in your Lordships' House I see that the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has in no way diminished. Nevertheless, despite all his experience and blandishments, I hope that once again I can prevail upon him to contain his impatience on that subject as well as this one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a Green Paper published by the Government would enable us to discuss what they have in mind for the RNR before anything formal is decided? Would that not be a good way through the problem, because we are so worried about it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I recognise your Lordships' interest in this important question, and, in particular, my noble friend's concern, especially in view of his own distinguished naval career. The phrase current in my department while we have been undertaking this important review is that the report should have the characteristics of a White Paper with green edges. I hope that the green edges element of the phrase reassures my noble friend that there will be a strong element of consultation once the proposals are announced. I reiterate what I told my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. There has already been considerable consultation with officers of the RNR and members of the TAVRA council during the past few months.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his previous answer that there will be a sea-going element in the future of the RNR will receive a great welcome from those serving in it? If he has had those wide consultations, he will be aware, will he not, of the frustration felt by those serving in the RNR about the great delay in reaching conclusions about its future service? Perhaps I may add my voice to the requests that there should be a further period of consultation so that the frustrations which are felt can be dispelled, and a proper role found, especially for those specialists who can occupy most valuable posts in the RNR.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's naval experience, as well as his experience in other matters, is well known to your Lordships' House. I chose my words most carefully. The conclusion he draws about the sea-going element is something for which I must ask him to wait a little longer. However, I reiterate that we value deeply the sea-going role, and that will be taken into account. So far as concerns the specialist elements, he will be well aware that in all three services the specialist skills of a number of reservists will be even more valued in the future, in view of the smaller forces. And that will be true also of the RNR.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, what ships are now available to the RNR for training purposes? Will they continue to be available in the future? Is there a role

1849
for the Hong Kong patrol squadron here after it is cut off on 30th June 1997 so that the ships may be used for RNR purposes?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, my noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. He knows as well as I do that the present minesweeper fleet vessels, which I believe are colloquially known as the Ton class, are available to a number of RNR units. The role of those ships and the sea-going role of the RNR will be part of the review. I am sorry, but I am sure that my noble friend will understand that I cannot go further than that at this stage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is correct when he says that there is widespread interest in the RNR? Many of us will be relieved to know that the Government are to introduce a White Paper with green edges. Will we be able to debate that paper when it is published?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is no doubt that uncertainty is one of the most debilitating factors in any review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in particular, for drawing attention to that point. Nevertheless, it may be some evidence of the seriousness with which we regard consultation, and, in particular, the opinion of those engaged in the RNR that the length of time is, perhaps, rather greater than we would ideally wish. So far as concerns the debate, the noble Lord no doubt knows the procedures of your Lordships' House better than I do. He will find many ways of, and opportunities for, raising this important question. Whether I can undertake to do so in government time is something I suggest that the noble Lord takes up with my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people believe that the cuts in all three services are substantially greater than justified by current dangers? Is he aware that for the price of one regular he can obtain the services of eight reservists in all three services? Is not that the type of argument which will persuade the Treasury to stop further cuts in our regular services? Will he say that we shall stop selling the Army reserves' drill halls? The same applies to all three services. Will he say that we will expand and recruit for these reserve services as the others are cut?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The services understand clearly that the reserves play a most important part by acting as a link between the Armed Forces of the Crown and the community. As the services become smaller, that role will become increasingly valuable. On his general proposition, I would say merely—it is something I have said frequently before—that if we need to reverse in any way the measures we have so far taken, as we showed the other day over infantry battalions we are prepared to reconsider the question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is not one of the most important matters affecting the RNR and the Royal Navy itself the fact that they should have
1850
sufficient vessels in which to sail? In those circumstances, is he aware—I am sure that he is—of the devastation caused on Tyneside by the unnecessary closing down of Swan Hunter which has a wonderful history of shipbuilding? Is he further aware that only a few miles from that shipyard Westoe colliery has been closed with the loss of 1,000 other jobs? Is not that a matter which should be given the most serious consideration?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a question of great importance. I do not underestimate it, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it has little to do with the RNR.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that what worries everyone interested in the Royal Navy and the reserve is not what he has been saying from the Dispatch Box but the strong suspicion, due to the Government's recent track record, that decisions will be taken and announced and then discussed when the damage has been done?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious of the amount of the time of your Lordships' House I have taken so far. If I thought that I had the time, I would be able to read out a list of dates and times during the past few months when consultations have taken place in private with the officers and officials I have mentioned in previous answers. Therefore, I am afraid that I must dispute to a large degree the assertion that the noble Lord has just made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has used the word "review" several times and the words "White Paper with green edges" that the Government are to produce at least once? Will the Minister kindly tell the House when this White Paper with green edges will be produced and whether the Government intend that the White Paper should go wider than the RNR and include the Royal Marine Reserve and the other reserve forces which are vital to our future defence? Why not make it a full defence review in the first place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hesitated a little when I was answering that part of the question, looked at the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and wondered whether I was wise to use the phrase "White Paper with green edges". If the noble Lord looks at the record I hope that he will see that I said that it was a phrase current in my department to characterise the nature of the review. I was not anticipating the publication of a White Paper with green edges on the subject. Just as we expect an announcement about the RNR, the other reserve forces will be the subject of other announcements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, without wishing to correct the Minister, in response to his noble friend Lord Mottistone who asked for a Green Paper, is he not aware that he used precisely that expression? If it is to be a Green paper, let it be a Green Paper.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am content as always to rely on the evidence of the Official Report. Let us see what it contains tomorrow morning.

Motor Cycle Noise Act: Implementation
3.20 p.m
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to implement the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is not possible to give a firm commitment and a date for the bringing into force of the 1987 Act and of the regulations to be made under it. However, these will follow as soon as possible after a related amendment to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. We now propose to go out to public consultation on those.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the great majority of cyclists and the organisations which represent them are keen to keep the level of noise from motor cycles as low as is reasonably possible? Is the Minister also aware that the admirable piece of legislation passed in 1987 sought to forbid dealers selling "after market" exhaust systems, which are often designed for the race track, to people owning road bikes? Is not the present position ludicrous in that it is against the law for an individual to use those systems but it is still legal for a dealer to sell them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is precisely why we wish to move as fast as possible in amending the 1986 regulations before moving on to the 1987 regulations. I understand full well the desires of the motor cycle industry to have the 1987 Act implemented. We too wish to have it implemented.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I raised the issue in this House after the legislation came from another place? Little did I believe that it would take so long to be implemented. Will the Minister give a more categoric assurance that the matter will be dealt with more speedily, a few years having elapsed since it was first introduced?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I could give the House a more categoric date I would be willing to do so. However, we need to go through the procedures and first pass the 1986 amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that we are determined to push on with the matter as fast as possible.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the invention of the fax machine has made the motor cycle a totally unnecessary means of conveyance since its sole purpose is to take documents from one yuppie to another? Furthermore, since the motor cycle endangers the lives of the elderly Members of your Lordships' House who have offices on the other side of the road, would it not be best to prohibit its use altogether?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that some Members of your Lordships' House will agree with my noble friend. However, I have every confidence that there will be others who do not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House will be surprised that in response to his noble friend's question he did not reply that that was not the Question on the Order Paper, which these days is his characteristic reply? Will the Minister indicate the process of the consultation? How long is it likely to be? Has there been a demand from motor cycling organisations and others for the Act to be implemented as rapidly as possible? Finally, can we expect to have legislation dealing with both matters in the course of the next Session of Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are going out to consultation on the amendment to the 1986 regulations and there will be four weeks in which to respond. However, as the noble Lord will know, the EC Commission needs to be informed under the standstill directive and will require at least three months in which to notify other member states and to consider the matter. Therefore, the timing remains a little obscure.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, nevertheless, is it not disappointing that six years after the Act was passed—I believe that I was the Minister responsible, but I can hardly remember that far back—it has not yet been implemented? It was broadly welcomed on all sides of the House. Is that connected with the fact that trading standards officers must be able to inspect dealers' premises; and are there enough trading standards officers to carry out that job?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will remember the Private Member's Bill passing through your Lordships' House. He will also be aware that soon after the 1987 Bill was made an Act the European Commission also decided that it was time to do something about motor cycles. Therefore, everything on this side of the Channel had to go into limbo until we received the EC resolution and agreement, which we now have. We have since been working on the problem and hope to work a little faster.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that a great deal of the draft legislation coming from Brussels is vigorously opposed not only in the European Parliament but here among motor cyclists? I believe that it would be good if we in this country sorted out our own legislation so that we could at least show the meddling European bureaucrats that our house is in order before they come in through our door?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Viscount said, especially from those Benches and with his Leader sitting beside him. One of the difficulties has been trying to reconcile what is in our legislation and making that work with agreements within the EC.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is perhaps indelicate, if not improper, to be discussing such matters in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington?

Forestry Commission: Planting Programme
3.26 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state the planned planting programme for the Forestry Commission for the next three years.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Forestry Commission's planned planting programme for the next three years is 10,100 hectares in 1993–94, 9,600 hectares in 1994–95 and 9,500 hectares in 1995–96. Those figures include both new planting and restocking.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the corporate plan of the Forestry Commission to which he has referred states specifically that there will be a run down in planting from the 5,000 hectares last year to 1,000 hectares, which is not the figure he quoted? Will he take into account that 20 years ago, which is a relatively short time in forestry terms, this country planted 42,000 hectares of which the Forestry Commission planted 22,000 hectares? Is that a process of running down in the Forestry Commission—privatisation by stealth—to reduce planting from the 22,000 hectares now in the corporate plan to 1,000 hectares? How is that consistent with the Government's policy promising a steady expansion of forestry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any contradiction between the figures that I gave and those given by the noble Lord. He is correct; he indicated what is in the Forestry Commission's plan showing the new planting. I accept that what is proposed for the next three years is that the figures should be down to 1,000 hectares. I believe the noble Lord appreciates that government policy is that most of the new planting should be carried out by the private sector. I am pleased to say that during the next three years new planting by that sector is expected to increase to some 18,500 hectares.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give the House an idea of the proportion of hardwoods and conifers that will be planted under the new planting scheme?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that the trend, which is agreed on all sides of the House, is that there should be a progressive move away from the blanket planting of conifers and towards more broadleaf trees. That is very much reflected in the change in policy which we have adopted. I can give my noble friend detailed figures if he so wishes.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, how is the decision on the area of planting arrived at? Is it a commercial decision freely made by the Forestry Commission or is there a government political hand behind it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe that I have clearly indicated that government policy is that most of the new planting should be carried out by the private sector. If the Forestry Commission were to increase its planting programme there would necessarily be a significant degree of public expenditure which, it is considered, we cannot contemplate at the present time. The lower income from timber sales as a result of the slow recovery of timber prices has affected the level of planting by the Forestry Commission.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend able to say whether the replanting carried out by the Forestry Commission on Mottistone Down on the Isle of Wight, which I have asked it to uproot because it is destroying the beautiful scenery, is making progress as an uprooting programme?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is a degree of precision about my noble friend's question that means that I must write to him to provide a detailed answer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his figure of 18,500—if that is the figure for private planting—plus 1,000 comes to 19,500 hectares? That is 10,000 hectares short of the Government's declared target. Will the noble and learned Lord take the advice given to him from all quarters of the House—in particular from noble Lords on his own side—that it would be better to build up the Forestry Commission rather than to run it down?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. I consider that if you take the two together —that is, the amount of restocking on Forestry Commission land and replanting by both the Forestry Commission and the private sector—the total figure will average what has been planted annually over the past 20 years.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we suspect that there is a great deal of pressure on the Government by the Treasury to sell off as much Forestry Commission land as possible. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that some experts believe that although the Treasury may think that it will realise £1.7 billion, if there is a necessity to include in the sale an obligation to replant and allow public access that figure will in fact be far less? Therefore, the position may be that the Treasury does not realise that sum of money or that there is very little planting. Is that what the future holds if we follow that route?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. I wish to emphasise, because it is of concern to the noble Lord and some of his noble friends, that under access arrangements introduced in October 1991 the commission gives advance notice to local authorities of its intended sales and offers to enter into legal agreements which will provide continued public access. I repeat that it is intended that the majority of new planting should be done by the private sector.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Housing and Urban Development Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that event, the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill will be taken.
Perhaps I should inform the House that the Committee stage of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill will be postponed to a later date.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Tuesday next and the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill through its remaining stages on Thursday 27th May.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill. I do so as a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who is the chairman of that committee. Is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that not only is that Bill one of extremely recent introduction but that the papers to enable our committee to consider it arrived only this morning? The committee is due to meet on Monday afternoon to consider those papers. It may cause problems if we wish to comment to your Lordships on a Bill which is due to go through all its remaining stages on the following day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend why it is necessary to curtail discussions on those two quite important and very interesting measures. They are best discussed in a Second Reading debate followed by a Committee stage, at which the arguments adduced on Second Reading can be challenged, if necessary by amendment. Therefore, it seems a great pity to limit the operation of the scrutiny of this House on two quite important measures in that way.
I appreciate that the Government's legislative programme may be in difficulties but, with great respect, is it justifiable to cut the proper scrutiny of those Bills in this way for that purpose?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may say from these Benches that we agreed to the request by the Government to do what was done in another place. That request received all-party agreement in order to speed the measures through the House. The measures are separate. The first, on non-domestic rating, is designed to bring much-needed relief to certain groups of businesses which benefit from provisions made in the Budget. The
1856
second Bill needs to pass through the House as quickly as possible because it gives certain protection as regards reinsurance. Therefore, although we are loath on this side of the House to agree to deny opportunities for debate, there are exceptions and we believe that these two Bills are such exceptions.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for confirming that this Motion was tabled with the agreement of the usual channels. He is correct that the reason why the Government believe that this is the right way in which to proceed is that both these Bills need to proceed quickly. They are non-contentious and have the support of all parties. They passed through another place extremely quickly.
An earlier enactment of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill will provide immediate relief for businesses from higher rates liabilities, thus helping them to recover from the recession. The Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill provides statutory backing which enables the Government to fulfil their commitment to act as a reinsurer of last resort in respect of damage caused by terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised an important point concerning the responsibilities of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I can best answer the noble Lord by saying that the effect of the Motion is to enable Standing Order 44 to be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages on Tuesday. It does not require the House to take all stages on Tuesday. If the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, following its meeting on Monday, were to consider that a point of sufficient importance arose on the Bill to justify further consideration, it would be possible to arrange for a separate Committee stage after the Whitsun Recess. Moreover, it is possible for members of the committee to raise any general points on the legislation during the Second Reading debate. Therefore, we are not obliged to put the suspension into effect. We can still proceed in the normal way if it is thought better to do so after the committee has met on Monday.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, on Monday next, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Part I in order to consider the amendment to insert a new Clause (Action short of dismissal: non-infringing actions) before Clause 13 and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken on the same day as Committee (on Re-commitment). —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister and the Leader of the House for acceding to the request, which they received and treated sympathetically, from my noble friend Lady Turner that the matter should be dealt with in this way. I should apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Turner who is not well. However, she has asked me to thank the two Ministers involved.
Although we have no objection to, and are party to, the Motion as it appears on the Order Paper, the Minister and the House should be aware that it is churlish in the extreme for the Government—not the Ministers affected—to treat the House in this way. The House is entitled to know that the amendment which will be before the House extends into three pages. It is a new clause which deals with an extremely important matter. At this very late stage the issue which the Government have decided the House must deal with concerns the denial of pay increases to employees who refuse to sign personal contracts which require them to relinquish trade union representation. An industrial tribunal decided that offering financial inducements in that way constituted action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities in breach of Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Those verdicts were overturned by majority decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal but the Court of Appeal ruled that the employers' action amounted to unlawful discrimination under Section 146 of the 1992 Act.
What troubles so many people is why the Government acted even before the judgment was available for study and why the Government announced on Report that they intended to bring forward this amendment in this way. The substance itself will be debated in the procedures that we have agreed. But it should be recognised that there are many people inside, and especially outside, the House who believe that the Government have acted with grave discourtesy and that it is a legislative outrage for the Government to act in this way.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I, too, am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has proposed that the House should resolve itself into a Committee next Monday to consider the Government's new clause rather than debating it as one of a number of amendments on Third Reading. I am sure that that is a wise decision. It means that there is now no need for us to engage in long and possibly acrimonious debate as to the procedure to be followed.
However, I must add that we consider it wholly wrong for the Government to introduce legislation to make a significant change in industrial relations law at the very last stage in the Bill's passage through the House, without any prior consultation with interested parties. We have also been concerned about the Government proposing to effect the change before it was known whether the recent Court of Appeal decisions in the cases involving Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports were to go before your Lordships' Appellate Committee.
My understanding now is that the new clause will not affect either of those cases; nor, indeed, any others
1858
which may be awaiting hearing by an industrial tribunal. I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount would confirm that that is the case. Most importantly, we are strongly opposed to the substance of what is proposed in the government amendment. However, I shall reserve what I have to say until we come to debate the new clause next Monday.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wish to echo the sentiments expressed concerning the procedure of rushing such an important amendment through the House. I ask the noble Viscount to reconsider his procedural Motion. I have participated in all stages of the Bill so far. I regret to say that its passage has been marked by a remarkable unwillingness on the part of the Government to listen and an even more remarkable unwillingness to answer any questions. That approach of the Government, taken by the noble Viscount, has created very considerable unease about the process to be adopted with respect to such a very important amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, pointed out, the amendment is complex and difficult. It will require very careful consideration and the Government will need to listen and think. Most especially, it surely requires that the Government should have time to consider the arguments raised in Committee between the Committee and Report stages. The Motion before the House would eliminate the chance of the Government to consider the arguments put forward in Committee before Report. I ask the noble Viscount, once again, to reconsider this procedural Motion.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should also like to echo the view put forward by my noble friend Lord Graham, the Opposition Chief Whip. Irrespective of the harmful effects this will have upon the parliamentary procedures and the proud position held by this House as a revising Chamber, it has been a feature of the Bill to have amendments tabled at a late stage without due consultation.
I have already made known my views concerning the special matters relating to Northern Ireland. But, with all sincerity, and while recognising the problems that confront business managers, I should like to point out that what is proposed will be harmful and may destroy the consultations and the trust that are chief elements of industrial relations, more so, perhaps, than the effects of the Bill itself. As regards the way that the legislation has been handled, I am not blaming Ministers in this House or the Opposition for trying to steer the Bill through. But, certainly, I am aware that it is having extremely harmful effects on the industrial relations procedures that exist in the United Kingdom.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Graham. As regards the first part of the Motion, it seems to me to be all right to recommit on Monday if there is a new and important clause to be discussed. But in the light of proposals regarding the reform of this Chamber, if it is our defence that the purpose of this Chamber is to

1859
carry out careful scrutiny and reconsideration of legislation, it behoves us to honour that commitment and to show that we do deliberate.
If we are recommitting this part of the Bill at such a late stage, a proper passage of time should be allowed between that stage and the Report stage. If we do not do so, and if we hurry the legislation through, then we are being false to the claim that this is a proper scrutinising Chamber.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for confirming the agreement of the Opposition to the course of action laid down by the Motion. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain briefly the purpose of the Motion. I believe that it will be helpful to your Lordships if the House reverts to Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill to consider the amendment which the Government have tabled on Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which deals with action short of dismissal.
I gave notice of our intention to move the amendment at col. 860 of the Report stage of the Bill on 6th May. As I said at the time, the Government's purpose is to clarify the effect of the law in this area. The recent judgments of the Court of Appeal in two cases have confirmed that the law is giving rise to difficulties and confusion. The present position is unsatisfactory, and it is important that we should act quickly to make the law clear.
I have, as I undertook to do, placed copies of the relevant Court of Appeal judgments in the Library of the House. I have also tabled the amendment at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that we needed to consider the implications of the Court of Appeal judgments very carefully in framing the amendment. I recognise that, if we were to have dealt with the matter on Third Reading, that would have restricted the scope for debate. I agree that it is important for your Lordships to have the opportunity to debate the amendment thoroughly. That is why the Government have tabled the Motion.
Through the Motion, we are providing an opportunity for the House to consider the amendment in detail in Committee. We tabled the proposed new clause as soon as possible to allow time for any further amendments to be tabled. I must point out to the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Desai, that the rest of the Bill has received very thorough consideration by your Lordships. Therefore, in the circumstances, I think it reasonable for the House to proceed to Third Reading of the Bill on that day.
I am most grateful for the helpful and constructive approach which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have adopted on the matter. I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with growing apprehension. I understand and support the reason why my noble friend Lord Graham agreed to the Motion. However, it seems to me that the choice he was given was
1860
between being hanged at the yard-arm and walking the plank. There is not much difference in personal comfort between the two.
Perhaps I may address myself to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I read the report of the very important and valuable debate initiated yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I noted with great interest, and some comfort, the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at the conclusion. But here, surely, is an example—and only a day after those aspirations were uttered by the Government Front Bench—where, once again, we have instant government without time for adequate reflection.
I do not know what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has to say about this. I am sure he wishes to preserve the proper appreciation of legislation. I dare say he has been overruled in the Cabinet or in some other place but he really should take on board the fact that it is not much use having general debates on matters of principle, as occurred yesterday when the whole House united in condemning instant government, only for the Government to come forward the very next day with yet another illustration of instant government. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will tell the Cabinet so. I am sure I speak not only for myself.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, had to say. When a noble Lord with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, makes such comments, the House listens very carefully, as I do. I do not seek to defend what is being done as being in the interests of best government. The Government found themselves in a difficult situation where there was a lack of clarity in the law. We had to weigh the uncertainty that that would create in many people's contractual arrangements with the difficulties the House of Lords has in dealing with this matter. We discussed it through the usual channels and I am extremely grateful that the noble Baroness from the Labour Party and the noble Lord from the Liberal Party agreed—I accept they did so reluctantly—that this is probably the best way to proceed. That is why the Government have proceeded in this way. However, I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Urban Development Bill 3.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 160A:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of managers
.—(1) Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (appointment of managers by the court) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 22 (Preliminary notice by tenant)—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words after "a notice" there shall be substituted "or notices under this section must (subject to subsection (3)) be served by the tenant. In the case of an application under section 24(2) (a) or (c), a notice conforming to the requirements of subsection (2A) of this section must be served upon the landlord of the premises. In the case of an application for a consent order under section 24(2) (b), a notice conforming to the requirements of subsection (3) of this section must be served upon each tenant, whether of a flat or of part or parts of the premises occupied or intended to be occupied otherwise than for residential purposes";

(b) in subsection (2), for "A notice" there shall be substituted "A notice served upon a landlord"; and

(c) after subsection (2) insert

"(2A) A notice to be served upon a tenant under this section must—

(a) specify the tenant's name, the address of his flat and an address in England and Wales (which may be the address of his flat) at which the landlord may serve notices, including notices in proceedings, on him in connection with this Part;

(b) state that the tenant intends to make an application for an order under section 24 to be made by the court in respect of premises to which this Part applies as are specified in the notice, and state the terms of any draft order that it is proposed to place before the court.

(c) contain such information (if any) as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe."

(3) In section 24(2) (appointment of manager by the court), after paragraph (a) insert
"(aa) whether or not the landlord is in breach of any obligations mentioned in paragraph (a), where the court is satisfied that consent to the making of this order in such terms as it thinks fit has been obtained from

(i) a majority of the tenants of flats in the premises, and

(ii) the tenant or tenants of any part or parts of the premises occupied or intended to be occupied for otherwise than residential purposes." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, two main causes of dissatisfaction with the long leasehold system exist. One is the fact that leases are wasting assets—we have already discussed that in great detail —and the other concerns the problems associated with management. It is that latter that I intend to address in this amendment this afternoon.
As the Bill stands, many people will be unable to enfranchise. Lease extensions, which we were so pleased to welcome when the Minister granted them the other day—we have not yet seen the actually wording and we wait to see that on Third Reading —will be of great help to people. However, the problem of bad management is common. Some two-thirds of flat owners complain of it. It affects the state of the national housing stock as well as the interests of individual flat owners. Surely we must tackle this problem by giving those who cannot enfranchise the right to manage, and it would be wrong if this legislation does not do so.
The difficulty of enfranchising has now been compounded by the new residence qualification, and
1862
the rule that those supporting enfranchisement must constitute 50 per cent. of occupiers in a block. Those are just two of the major concessions recently made to the landlord interest in the course of the passage of the Bill. We have now reached a position where eight separate hurdles have to be leapt before flat owners can even reach the starting point on the way to freehold ownership. Then there are the practical obstacles of raising the necessary finance and coping with the complex procedures. Many blocks will be ineligible, and in others which are eligible costs and other factors will prevent the qualifying leaseholders from getting the required majority support for enfranchisement.
The new residence test is particularly significant, more so than has been allowed. In many blocks the problem will not just be the presence of company owned flats and second homes. Flats which have been repossessed or whose owners have rented them out in order to avoid repossession before having lived there for three years will find themselves in real difficulty in meeting the 50 per cent. residence qualification. The qualification proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, of one year or three years in 10 is a severe one as in the late 1980s many people bought flats intending to continue to live in them then found they could not afford to do so. Indeed they were encouraged by the Government to let them out as a way of coping with their negative equity problems. Those people now find themselves in an even more difficult and disadvantaged situation.
For all those reasons the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee believes there will be many unenfranchised blocks and that in many of these bad management practices will continue unless there is some measure along the lines of this proposed amendment. Chapters V and VI of the Bill seek to improve the range of rights available to tenants in blocks under the control of landlords. However, in the view of the LRCC, that is to aim at the wrong target. The real need is to improve access to rights. Under the 1985 and 1987 Landlord and Tenant Acts flat owners' rights are already very impressive on paper. However, they fall down in practice. Government sponsored research has shown that in practice tenants are far too often unable to use their rights, mainly because of the high costs and the complexities of the court proceedings involved. That unfortunately will also be true of the new rights created by the Bill as drafted.
Tenants already have a right under the 1987 Act to take over the management of their own homes, but only where a landlord can be proved to be at fault. That may sound fair and reasonable but the court proceedings involved are so long and costly that in practice this is virtually a dead letter. One problem is that the procedure involved is cumbersome; another is that it must be proved that a landlord is currently in breach of a management obligation and is likely to continue to be so. If he persuades the court he is going to deal with the problem named by the tenants, their case falls to the ground and has to be started all over again if he fails to honour the commitments he has

1863
given. Above all, the fact that a landlord has a bad management record is not a ground on which the court can make an order.
Westminster City Council has in many instances had to intervene on behalf of tenants because landlords have collected money from tenants but failed entirely to carry out the repairs or upgrading they promised. It is only when they are threatened with a compulsory purchase order or court action that they appear willing to carry out the work. As soon as the threat has receded, they once again fail to carry out the work. In the end, Westminster City Council had to compulsorily purchase a number of blocks which it then passed on to housing associations for the latter to act as landlords as the council wished to see the tenants protected.
I am not really speaking here about good landlords. No tenant would wish to change a good landlord or a good managing agent. Nevertheless, I think there is great cause for concern that many people are dissatisfied and feel that the service charges they pay are not properly accounted for. I realise service charge accounts are meant to be submitted to tenants. However, last week I met a man who was a statutory tenant in a block. He told me that when he went to a rent review tribunal the accounts that were produced for the block he lives in were completely different from the figures that were produced for tenants who pay the service charges. There is a large discrepancy that no one ever accounts for.
At the very least the amendment would give access to the right to manage and would make that much more practicable. The LRCC believes that the best approach is to give a right to manage without the necessity and legal expense of proof of fault, dependent only on proof that the tenants in the building consent to such an order. The landlord also must consent. This is simply a matter of common sense. It will be an obvious anomaly for the law to give flat owners the ability to take over both ownership and control of properties without proof of fault, as is now proposed in the Bill, and yet to insist that where the lesser objective of control without ownership is sought, then fault must be proved. As I explained before, that is difficult to prove.
Under the regime created by the amendment, the required majority of residential tenants, together with any non-residential tenants, will approve the proposal to take control of the management. They will go to court to seek an order. Because the proceedings will be consent proceedings involving no legal contest between landlord and tenants, the problems associated with the use of courts under Part II of the 1972 Act as currently enacted will not arise.
The amendment does not propose that landlords be deprived of the power to manage, merely that that power may be taken away from them. Landlords would also have the right to apply to the court for protection or to seek revocation or amendment of any order made.
Good landlords have nothing to fear because tenants would want to leave them in control. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in
1864
particular to the fact that there is no question of tenants seeking windfall profits. I know that the noble Lord was concerned about that possibility in relation to ownership. No profits would be involved in taking over management or appointing new managing agents. It would simply be a case of improving the management.
It may also be argued that, in buying leases which give control of management to landlords, flat owners are only getting what they contracted for. That is true, if the landlords fulfil their obligations. Leases of flats involve management obligations rather than rights. Where those obligations are not met it is the landlords, not the tenants, who are flouting the rights of property and the sanctity of contract. Properly speaking, landlords do not have rights; they have obligations. However, it should be noted that under normal residential leases landlords are not allowed to make a profit out of management. They are meant to charge the tenants for the management functions which they carry out but that should not be on a profit-making basis. Nevertheless, many landlords abuse the system and make profits from service charges and other management fees.
The fact that the right to manage is consistent with the freedom of contract and the principles of property ownership is no doubt one reason why the chief executive of the Grosvenor Estates proposed in a recent letter to The Times that that right should be given to flat owners and why at an earlier stage my noble friend Lord Boardman brought forward Amendment No. 160 relating to the right to manage. My noble friend has since withdrawn that amendment. I considered re-tabling the amendment but thought that it would not be right to do so since he must have thought that it was defective or he would not have withdrawn it. My amendment is slightly different and, I believe, rather better.
Amendment No. 160A is limited in scope. Because of the late stage in the Bill's proceedings the amendment has been framed to achieve the objective with the minimum of new legislative provision. Conferring the right to manage exclusively by provisions within the current Bill would require numerous consequential amendments. This amendment seeks to achieve its objective through a relatively minor change in the 1987 Act, using the procedural mechanism created in that Act by simply adding a consent order procedure to the existing proof of fault procedure.
It would be for the court to make the necessary arrangements to protect the landlord from having any liability where he does not have control, just as it currently has that role where it takes over management on proof of fault. The amendment will not leave the court in day-to-day control of the management of a block of flats. That would be impractical and it was not the intention of the 1987 Act. The court puts a nominee and a manager in control of the management. In practice, the tenants would usually set up a management company. If that is satisfactory, that company would be appointed as manager by the court. That happened under the 1987 Act in the recent case of Howard v Midrome Limited.

1865
The management company would then take over full responsibility for the management, leaving the landlord without liability.
I believe that the amendment protects the rights of all involved. Under the right to manage created by the amendment, anyone, including the landlord, would enjoy the protection of being able to go to court to seek a revocation or amendment of the order on the ground that it was not working or that it was working in a way which was prejudicial to their interests. Again, I point out to the House that I am sure bad landlords will not seek revocation if that happens. Good landlords may do so because they may consider that the arrangement is not working.
Amendment No. 160A differs from Amendment No. 160B. I should like to mention the differences and say why I prefer my amendment and do not support Amendment No. 160B. Amendment No. 160A covers commercial tenants as well as residential tenants. I do not believe that Amendment No. 160B does so. Local authority tenants are covered under Amendment No. 160B. My own experience of the field of local authority housing leads me to consider that the provision is less appropriate for that sector. Under my amendment, commercial tenants are recognised and will be protected because the amendment demands that all commercial tenants agree to a consent order before it can be made. That provides very good protection. It is also appropriate because there may be a large commercial presence in some properties and the commercial tenants would have an interest in the matter.
I commend the amendment to your Lordships. The very fact that the Grosvenor Estates supports the concept is interesting, because I believe that it takes its obligations as a landlord seriously. That support must indicate that there is good in the amendment. I also believe that your Lordships will appreciate the common sense, sound value and simplicity of the amendment. I hope that your Lordships will support Amendment No. 160A. I do not support Amendment No. 160B, and I shall not speak to Amendment No. 237A, which is grouped with those amendments, because I have not had time to study its implications. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too shall speak to Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B and I shall not speak to Amendment No. 237A, partly because I have not had time to study it and partly because the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is perfectly capable of making out his own case.
I follow the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, a long way. I do not intend to reiterate her arguments. In the course of its passage through your Lordships' House, the Bill has changed in certain respects, particularly in connection with the residency test and lease renewal. The consequence will be that enfranchisement will inevitably be less than it would have been had the Bill gone through as originally drafted. I believe that that is agreed on all sides by all rational men and women. On the other hand, there is a residual problem, which the noble
1866
Baroness quite rightly raised—namely, that there is therefore all the more reason for tenants to have greater influence on the management of the properties in which they live and of which they are leaseholders and in which they hold an interest. Indeed, at one stage of the passage of the Bill it was considered that there would be a package comprising a residency test, lease renewal and management of estates.
I follow the noble Baroness that far. However, where I differ from the noble Baroness is on the part of her amendment which alludes to the court. I believe that the existing arrangements, as she rightly said, are unsatisfactory. But I believe that the arrangements in her amendment would hardly be more satisfactory. I also do not follow her logic when she states that council tenants or local authority tenants should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as private sector tenants.
I do not wish to go over the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, put to the Committee to justify the amendment which he moved, again very eloquently. Further, I wish to draw a distinction between what we propose in Amendment No. 160B and Amendment No. 213A, which specifically addresses the issue in Part II of the Bill.
In Amendment No. 160B I seek to establish the logic of the argument which we have been pursuing at all stages of the Bill. The logic is that if tenants can enfranchise, they will be in charge of the management of their properties. If for one reason or another they cannot enfranchise, they will have the right to renew their lease. If they have the right to renew their lease, subject to all the tests which they have to go through, then those who are still leaseholders of a freeholder should have the right to influence at least the management of the properties in which they live and which are their homes.
The logic goes further than just private leaseholders. It applies to leaseholders or tenants of any landlord, be he or she public or private. That is the logic of Amendment No. 160B. That is why I much prefer Amendment No. 160B to Amendment No. 160A.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships because I do not believe that at Report stage we should go over all the arguments that we have been through in Committee. I simply put forward Amendment No. 160B from these Benches as an amendment which we believe to be important, substantial and in the logic of the Bill as drafted. I would have much preferred the noble Baroness to have reserved her amendment for a later stage. At present I strongly prefer Amendment No. 160B and cannot support the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 160A. However, if the House decides against what I propose in Amendment No. 160B, the noble Baroness may reconsider the position at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, will wish to speak on the matter. In Committee he spoke eloquently to an amendment approximately on the same lines excluding public sector tenants. It came as some surprise that he withdrew the amendment when it had already been tabled for Report.

1867
In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will accept Amendment No. 160B because it covers all the areas to which I have referred. It provides a way of public or private tenants being in some measure in charge of the management of their homes. The noble Lord may say that the amendment may be defective; I do not know. No doubt he will be able to clear up the defects at Third Reading if your Lordships accept the basic provision. I put forward an important principle: that people who are leaseholders who do not own the freehold, whether public or private, should have the right to say who manages their homes. That is the burden of Amendment No. 160B. That is what I wish to speak to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word in opposition to both Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B. In doing so, perhaps I may declare my interest as someone who, with others, has the right to buy, does not propose to exercise it and would wish to be able to participate in the management of the block, whether as part of a package or not.
My reasons—as part of the declaration of interest in not wishing to exercise the right to buy—are that under the common leases the provision of the services are at audited cost; the landlord is an honourable man; the managing agents appointed are of repute and charge a percentage of the management services, cost of repairs and so on; and that I am wholly content and would not wish to move from my home or take a quick turn at the expense of the landlord.
Listening to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I would say with utmost respect to her that good landlords have a great deal to fear from enfranchisement and from the split administration which arises as a consequence of enfranchisement. As my noble friend spoke, she opened up for me, as a lawyer, a somewhat terrifying vista of endless and expensive legislation, the setting up of management companies, and so on and so forth, which more often than not rather than resolve differences between neighbours can even accentuate them.
I understand that Amendment No. 160 is a Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee amendment. In this context again I say that I speak for no one but myself. My objection to the amendment is that it conflicts with the residence condition accepted on Amendment No. 14 at Committee stage, with consequent amendments on Report, and no doubt will also conflict with the government amendment to reflect in some degree Amendments Nos. 29 to 30A moved by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Amendment No. 160B seems to have arisen as a phoenix from the ashes of Amendment No. 160. I would indeed have supported in principle Amendment No. 160, as I believe I said at the time of speaking to Amendment No. 14 at Committee stage. With regard to Amendment No. 160B, my objections are essentially twofold, while accepting that some
1868
requisite means of participation must be provided for tenants who decline to exercise the right to buy. The two reasons are these.
First, I do not understand why groups of houses in public sector estates, as defined in subsection (5), should be included in subsections (2) (b) and (3) (b), or why it is appropriate to do so. Secondly, it is not understood or considered that management is sufficiently defined to include all aspects of the administration of the block. But, as to the requisite means of participation which lie behind the debate on Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B, Amendment No. 160 had it been moved or any other similar amendment, certain questions arise on which, if the Minister is able to give some measure of assurance, I should indeed be most grateful.
First, would the management, as proposed by the Government, include the right to disturb services rendered at cost under common leases, to alter the cost of provision, or even to discontinue the provision of such services as regards the tenants who decline to enfranchise? On 18th May, at col. 1718 of Hansard, my noble friend the Minister said, in the context of service charges:
"One of the objectives of [the scheme] is to release tenants from that regime".
That regime should not be perpetuated in an estate management scheme. To what extent can the management committee, set up by those who exercise the right to buy, enforce amendment of the provisions of the common form lease upon those who do not wish to exercise that right? I know that I am a lawyer and I should know the answer, but I do not.
What is the position as regards the repairing company, or the exercise, for example, of an option to purchase a caretaker's flat, or an agreed reduction in service charges under the common leases when a statutory tenant in the block falls ill? What is the position as regards the mutual covenants scheduled to the lease?
Those who wish to participate in an estate management scheme, not having enfranchised, seek clarification as to whether and, if so, to what extent the management committee may, contrary, for example, to my wishes, disturb the contractual relationship under the common form lease which exists between myself and my landlord? I seek clarification and a measure of reassurance respectfully. I wish I knew the answer. For the reasons I have given, despite what lies behind the amendments, I am unable to agree with either of them. Nevertheless, I should have supported Amendment No. 160.
Lord Monson: My Lords, superficially there is some attraction in both amendments. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I accept entirely that there would be no question of windfall profits accruing to anyone if either of the amendments were to be accepted.
The problem is that in so far as the amendments would deal with bad landlords, they are to be welcomed. However, in certain circumstances, they could also unfairly make life difficult for highly respected, good landlords such as Smith's Charity and other landlords of high repute.

1869
The chief circumstances that come to mind are these. There are periods of high inflation such as we saw to a large degree in the early 1970s, to a lesser degree in the late 1970s and for a small period in the early 1980s. At such times, especially for those who exist on a fixed income, it is a normal human reaction to resent all price increases of any kind, including increases in management charges, even if the increases do no more than keep pace with the rapidly rising cost of living. That could lead to resentful tenants voting to kick out perfectly good landlords from their management function in the mistaken belief that the management fee increases were unjustified. That could arise even though the increases happened to be no more than level-pegging with or below the retail prices index.
For that reason, while the broad thrust of the amendments is probably to be welcomed, the threshold at which the landlord could be removed from his existing management functions under Amendment No. 160B would appear to be 50.001 per cent. That is to say, anything over half of the tenants. However, that is too low. The figure ought to be somewhere between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. If the amendment were to be brought back on Third Reading with that change incorporated, I should support it. However, as it stands, I do not believe that I can.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, both my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the amendment which I moved earlier in Committee. As I made clear at the time, Amendment No. 5 was part of a group of amendments which hung together. The management's right to protect the lease and there being no right for non-residents to enfranchise were all part of a package. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord strenuously opposed my Amendment No. 5, knowing that with it hung Amendment No. 160 which, as a consequence, I withdrew. I do not accept my noble friend's criticism for withdrawing an amendment which I made clear at the outset was part of Amendment No. 5 which she forcefully opposed.
Perhaps I may return to my noble friend's speech in moving the amendment. She made three points on which I wish to join issue with her. First, she said that purchasers must be occupiers of 50 per cent. of the block. She will find that recorded in Hansard. With great respect, she has not followed the Bill nor the effect of Amendment No. 14 which I moved and which was accepted; indeed, it was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. She was quite impressed with that. Therefore, the whole of her argument is, I believe, based on a fallacy.
My noble friend then said something and I hope that she will forgive me quoting it. If she wishes to correct me I shall happily give way. I believe that it was an unfortunate remark. She said that we should not be concerned with management rights but with management obligations. Managements, she said,
"do not have rights; they have obligations".
I do not know whether my noble friend really meant that. If she did, I shall certainly give way to her.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, by leave of the House, yes. We were talking about contracts and leases. If one studies the lease of any flat, one sees that it places obligations upon the landlord. He has obligations to maintain the block and to see that it is maintained. That is what I meant about the obligations. It is not a pleasure in the sense that, "I have the right to look after the block", or "not to look after the block". It is an obligation on the landlord which the good landlord always carries out adequately and which the bad landlord fails to carry out. But it is a contractual obligation under a lease.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. In my book, each side to a contract has rights and obligations. It is not a one-sided bargain, as perhaps my noble friend has suggested on this and a number of other amendments. I find her amendment defective. It is based on the wrong premise and perhaps does not follow the complexities of what has been approved in my Amendment No. 14. Perhaps it is through having a different approach to obligations and rights. I oppose her amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 160B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, perhaps I can claim part copyright because large sections of it come from my Amendment No. 160. Unfortunately that amendment was withdrawn, not simply because Amendment No. 5 was lost, but also because I had received advice that it was entirely defective and would be unacceptable. In so far as he has taken from me the copyright of the preface to my amendment, I have to say to him with regret that I am advised that the amendment is defective. No doubt my noble friend will be able to say whether nor not that is so. Certainly it was not drafted with the object of extending, as the noble Lord has, into the public sector. I understand his argument. But I would find that the amendment, in so far as it copied my Amendment No. 160, was probably wrong. As it extends into the public sector, I think it inappropriate. However, my noble friend may have more to say on the matter.
I have not studied the other amendment, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which is grouped with this one. As it has not been amended, I shall make no comment on it. I certainly oppose Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I support the general thrust of these amendments. In coming to that decision I am very much influenced by the fact that in nearly every case the financial interest of the tenants in a block of flats is very much greater than that of the landlords. Indeed, the reverse only occurs when leases have only a few years to run before expiry.
Both of the amendments appear to me to suffer from some defect. I shall illustrate the point that worries me by asking noble Lords to consider a block containing 100 flats and 20 offices or shops. Under Amendment No. 160A at least 51 residential flat owners would have to agree before a management order could be obtained—and also, all 20 of the non-residential owners. That would be so even if one

1871
were to disagree. Therefore, a situation could arise whereby 18 or 19 of the commercial owners would want a manager appointed, but there would be one dissentient so the management application would be blocked.
In the case of Amendment No. 160B, commercial owners are omitted entirely. In that eventuality, to take the block which I have suggested for consideration, one would find that a majority—not even a majority, only 50 per cent. —of the flat owners in the block would be able to secure a management order, and the wishes of the commercial owners would be entirely neglected.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for making so clear the issue to be addressed. It is indeed, as she puts it, management obligations. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in saying that this is a position where the rights of the management or manager, however one wishes to describe him, need to be balanced with his obligations. In any agreement both sides have rights and obligations, and those are to be recognised. As the noble Baroness described, a lease has a benefit for the landlord in the rent that he is paid, and he has obligations to maintain the property. It is a simple quid pro quo; one which often expresses itself in about 65 pages of lease. The noble Baroness is quite right in drawing our attention to the fact that this is at the heart of her amendment; and, indeed, at the heart of Amendment No. 160B. It is the objective of both those amendments to ensure that if there is a failure to comply with the obligations—after all, in the real world when things are going well no tenant will want to create the complex situation of applying the provisions of either of these clauses but would simply prefer to get on with a quiet life and let the landlord undertake the management—and things go wrong, then it is entirely right that the tenants, both those described in Amendment No. 160A and the more extensive group of tenants in Amendment No. 160B, should have the right to take action to protect their own positions.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these amendments seek, in different ways, to give tenants a right to manage their homes. We have heard a number of speeches explaining how many of the problems in the running of blocks might be overcome if the tenants had the right to take control of the management, and certainly it is a seductive idea. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said it was superficially attractive. After all, the tenants meet the cost of the management through their service charges so, the argument goes, it is only right that they should control how that money is spent. I believe, however, that there are some fundamental difficulties which noble Lords may not have sufficiently addressed in looking at these amendments. I fear that the Government cannot go along with what is proposed. and I shall explain why.
First, I believe that giving tenants the right to take management responsibility from private landlords is unfair to landlords. Many of them manage their blocks themselves and there is no reason to suggest
1872
that, by and large, their standards of management are lower than those of, say, a reputable managing agent. It is their livelihood, yet these proposals would take away their business. Now, of course, enfranchisement is equally likely to result in a change of management in these circumstances. But in that case the landlord does receive back the value of his investment. Allowing the tenants to take away management responsibilities without also taking on ownership of the block is equivalent to taking away a business but keeping the former owner's capital invested in it. That is hardly fair. Equally, I am not sure that the proposals would actually provide an effective basis for the management of residential accommodation.
I take first the proposal from my noble friend Lady Gardner. That is based on the existing regime in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which allows the court to appoint a manager if it is satisfied that the landlord is in breach of his obligations under the lease and that the breach is likely to continue. The amendment would give tenants the right to apply to the court for the appointment of a manager, whether or not the landlord is in breach of his obligations. So it considerably widens the scope of the 1987 Act.
But that approach does not provide a sensible and sustainable way to manage blocks. It is one thing to allow a court to step in and appoint a manager where the landlord is in default, but it is quite another to do so when the management arrangements are working in a perfectly satisfactory way.
Taking management responsibilities from the landlord and giving them to the appointed manager is not always a very happy recipe. It is hardly a flexible way of dealing with day to day management if, every time there is some disagreement between the landlord and the manager about what action the manager should take, there has to be an application to the court for direction.
The fundamental difficulty is that while the manager may be appointed by the court he is nevertheless answerable to the landlord. The amendment does not give the tenants a right to manage, only a means of ensuring that a manager appointed by the court is in place. Where the landlord has not defaulted or failed in his obligations it would be fundamentally unsatisfactory for the courts to appoint a manager who will then be responsible to the landlord, even where there is a majority of the tenants in favour. It may be tolerable in the case where the alternative is a landlord who defaults on his obligations through apathy, but it is not an acceptable alternative in other cases. Therefore, I have very great difficulties with my noble friend's amendment.
I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The amendment adopts a different approach. under which tenants acting collectively can appoint a management, presumably to act for them. Again, I think there is a fundamental difficulty here. The noble Lord sought to establish a logic. I fear he failed to do so. I ask him some simple questions. To whom is the manager answerable? Does he take his orders from the landlord, of from the tenants? If it is from the tenants, what rights and responsibilities does the landlord have? Is he effectively dispossessed of his

1873
property? If the manager takes his orders from the tenants, who gives them? Is it each tenant individually? Is it different groups of tenants? It is not at all satisfactory to say that the leasehold valuation tribunal will sort out the details in each case—they cannot re-write every lease in the country. That is not a drafting point, it is a fundamental flaw.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I shall have to interrupt the noble Lord. No doubt he realises that we are at Report stage. We have grouped together a series of amendments. I have spoken to that group. Therefore, I am unable to respond to his questions. However silly they may be, I am unable to respond to them.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords. But the noble Lord may wish to counter those points when he decides whether or not to move his amendment. The noble Lord's amendment deals not only with blocks of flats but goes on to give any tenant of a public sector estate "a right to manage". Those proposals are unnecessary.
The Bill already provides in Clause 120 new arrangements under which properly constituted tenant management organisations shall have the right to take over from their local authority landlord management responsibilities. That clause sets out proper arrangements under which the Secretary of State may make regulations dealing, among other matters, with the administrative support and training of the tenant management organisation, feasibility studies, balloting, and for settling all the matters to be considered.
Before I explain the very real problems that I have with the amendment, perhaps I may turn to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who made a somewhat complicated speech, which I do not pretend to have followed in its entirety. Perhaps I may write to him with the detailed answers. However, the point is that the tenants will have to pay the cost of maintaining their own blocks through charges imposed by the nominee purchaser. Non-participants would have exactly the same rights and obligations under their leases as they had before enfranchisement. The lease itself remains unchanged.
I believe that both the amendments are wrong in principle. Moreover, both leave a great many issues unanswered and would therefore be extremely difficult to put into practice. Any tenants who were to venture down the new avenues offered by these amendments would soon find themselves surrounded in a fog of ill-defined responsibilities with no firm structures in place to guide them.
These amendments offer only illusory rights. The detailed and well-defined procedures that we have offered for enfranchisement and for tenant management organisations offer a far better approach. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lady Gardner is satisfied with my explanation. I hope that she is able to withdraw her amendment arid that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not move his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to various Members of the House who have
1874
spoken on this matter. I must reply to a few of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, examined many points going beyond those directly concerned with the lease. I am glad that the Minister will reply to him.
I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the Australian shorthold situation which works very well. There is always a management company which owns the block and each person has a share in it. It is decided by a majority of those people themselves, some of whom are actively interested and some of whom do not attend a single meeting, whether or not they want to spend money on a luxurious entrance. The arrangement is not a haphazard matter. I take note of the noble Lord's comments about the 60-plus per cent. of tenants. That is very interesting. I might be able to pursue it at a later stage with my noble friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and I are, I believe, at cross purposes. We both understand leases perfectly well and the fact that on each side there are rights and obligations. The tenant's main obligation is to pay rent and to abide by the landlord's covenants, which usually include interior decorating, not disturbing other people in the block, and so on. But the tenant's right is to enjoy the flat and the occupancy thereof without disturbance and to rely on the landlord to do what he has covenanted to do, which usually includes maintaining the building, cleaning, insuring, and, of course, the tenant has to pay a proportion for that. The noble Lord said that I had said 50 per cent. of the purchases. If I said that, that is not what I meant. I meant 50 per cent. of the residents. That is the phrase that I should have used in my amendment.
But that is neither here nor there. I intend to take up the other points made by the Minister. He made a very interesting case. I accept what he said: that the landlord has the right to manage the block and it is his business. Provided that he is doing it well, I have no fault to find. Having listened to the Minister's reply, I feel that probably the real problem with the 1987 Act, to which my amendment relates, concerns the two passages about "currently in breach" and "likely to continue the breach" of the obligation to manage the property adequately. That is why tenants are so dissatisfied at the moment. They fail in any attempt to get rid of a bad landlord and have the court appoint managing agents to take over because of those two difficulties: the "currently" and "continuing" to do so. The really bad and completely evasive landlord has means of avoiding the word "currently" by hurriedly doing whatever is complained about; and at present the law does not take into account any past history of how many years of failure to do what needs doing has gone on.
I believe that there is a different way in which we could bring an amendment forward. It would cover the situation in the same way by applying to the court and proving the fault but the fault would not have to be proved on such a restricted basis as at present. At the moment it is almost impossible for tenants to succeed, no matter how bad the landlord may be. I have cited cases in which a council has tried to protect

1875
tenants and found it extremely frustrating in that nothing works with a really slippery landlord. With the good landlord, I do not believe that anyone will attempt to change the situation. People will be perfectly happy.
I have been persuaded by my noble friend not to press my amendment at this stage. But I shall have discussions with him before Third Reading. I believe that there is a point which could be brought forward which would be acceptable to both tenants and landlords and we should try to find it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 160B:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Tenants' right to manage
.—(1) This section shall confer upon tenants to whom subsection (2) below applies the right to appoint a manager to carry out such functions in connection with the management of those premises as the leasehold valuation tribunal shall order.
(2) This section applies—

(a) to the tenant of any flat within premises if—

(i) they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building and the freehold of the whole building or of that part of the building is owned by the same person;

(ii) they contain two or more flats;

(iii) not less than two-thirds of the flats contained in the premises are held by tenants under a long lease, and

(b) to any tenant of a public sector estate.

(3) The right to appoint a manager under this section shall only be exercisable where written notice of appointment is given—

(a) in the case of premises with tenants falling within subsection (2) (a) above, to the landlord responsible for managing the premises and to the freeholder if not the same person by not less than half of the tenants of flats in those premises and not less than half of the tenants giving such notice satisfy the residence condition set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section (Qualifying tenants satisfying residence condition); and

(b) in the case of a public sector estate, to the public sector landlord by not less than half of the tenants of houses on that estate, each of whom is either a secure tenant or a qualifying tenant as defined in section 5.

(4) Upon application by a manager appointed in accordance with subsection (3) the leasehold valuation tribunal shall make an order providing for—

(a) the manager to assume responsibility for the performance of such of the obligations of the landlord as may be determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal;

(b) for the manager to indemnify the landlord against any claim for non-performance of those obligations; and

(c) such other matters relating to the exercise by the manager of his functions and such matters as are incidental or ancillary thereto as the leasehold valuation tribunal thinks fit.

(5) In this section—

"long lease" has the meaning given in section (Meaning of "long lease");

"self contained building or part of a building" shall be construed in accordance with section 3(2);

"a public sector estate" means a group of houses of which the freehold is owned by the same public sector landlord, and which are agreed by the landlord and the tenants of at least two thirds of the houses in the
1876
group, or where no such agreement is capable of being reached, determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal, to constitute a public sector estate;

"house" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1985;

"management" of any premises includes repair, maintenance and insurance of those premises.

(6) In making a determination of under this section, a leasehold valuation tribunal may have regard to such matters as it thinks fit.
(7) The right conferred by this section shall have effect notwithstanding any order made under section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 providing for the exercise of any management functions to be defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act (compulsory competitive tendering.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. It offers a different approach from that of the noble Baroness. I recognise that. The fact that the amendments were grouped together was perhaps slightly misleading. However, this raises a very important point of principle and I wish to test the opinion of the House on the matter. I beg to move.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 160B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell. L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington. L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Grimond, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Healey, L.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

1877

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kintore, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kitchener, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Amwell, L.

Layton, L.

Annaly, L.

Leigh, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Liverpool, E.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

LyeII, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lytton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Barber, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon.of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Moyne, L.

Brightman, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Cadman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Pender, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Porritt, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pym, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Rankeillour, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V..

Rees-Mogg, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rennell, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Selborne, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Shannon, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stedman, B.

Faithfull, B.

Strafford, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Finsberg, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Flather, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

[Teller.]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Tenby, V.

Goschen, V.

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood; V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kindersley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 160C:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Preservation of external condition
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2), after consultation with such conservation societies as may be deemed by him to be appropriate, by order direct those persons who have exercised the right to enfranchise their flats, or any person or body set up to manage a block of flats, to preserve and conserve the external decorative treatment and structural condition of such block of flats in conformity with that of other properties in the terrace, crescent, street, square or circus in which such block is situated in compliance with the provisions of such direction.
(2) No direction may be given under subsection (1) above unless an opportunity has been afforded to all interested parties to make representations to the Secretary of State and due account has been taken of such representations.)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 160C is concerned with the preservation of the external condition of houses in which there has been total or partial enfranchisement of the flats held on long leases. At present, and indeed as has been the case for some time—one is tempted to say all but centuries —this important matter of preservation lies within the remit of those landlords who discharge their functions in that regard with diligence and conspicuous success.
The amendment is also concerned with the question of enforcement; that is, the means to the end of such preservation under the new regime proposed by the Bill. The whole object of tabling the amendment was to afford an opportunity for further discussion on a matter of some importance and of common concern. Again, I declare an interest as a long leaseholder who lives in a flat in a square to which the amendment would apply.
In a way this subject claimed the attention of your Lordships' House last Tuesday. In this context, at cols. 1714-5 my noble friend the Minister said that he would give consideration as to whether the leasehold valuation tribunals should have power to transfer rights and powers to English Heritage and local planning authorities in conservation areas, who would be obliged to consult with all persons interested. My noble friend then dealt with certain reservations, and no doubt at Third Reading some amendment will be brought forward.
Frankly, the Bill as it stands is defective in any event. There are no measures of safeguard in this respect provided in the Bill. If there be an end upon which we can all agree, so be it. The means of enforcement then must be truly effective to preserve and conserve the external decorative treatment and the structural condition of the houses in which the flats have been let on long leases so that conformity with other properties in the immediate vicinity of a conservation area may be preserved. This is not only in London. It is all over the country; notably Bath, for one example, and Cheltenham, for another example. One could go on. This is not a London affair. It is a national affair.
These are external facades of, to my way of thinking, great beauty and at all events of great architectural interest. They are for the enjoyment of all. They are a tribute to our heritage. Effective

1879
enforcement will now be wholly requisite as we will have no landlord to take the appropriate action to preserve them. We must envisage, must we not, a split administration between those who have exercised the right to buy and those who for some reason have declined to exercise that right? I say with respect to my noble friend the Minister—I always address him with respect—that I entertain some real reservations as to whether a transfer of power by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to English Heritage and the local planning authority would in practice truly afford effective means of enforcement once the landlords have gone. It is a very cumbersome approach.
I take the view that, after all, it is the Minister who has introduced this new regime and it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Minister should bear the responsibility for ensuring that the implementation of his new regime should not have most unwelcome consequences in this context. Though it may be irksome for a Department of State to assume such responsibility, none the less your Lordships may think that it is requisite that it should. It is not the intention to seek to pre-empt such government amendment as may be introduced, but I have not seen a draft of it and I do not know whether a draft already exists. Your Lordships may take the view that the buck on enforcement, as a matter of principle, stops with the Minister and that therefore the principle of the amendment is appropriate. I shall of course attend to your Lordships' contributions to this debate with deference and care in the hope that this amendment may commend itself in principle. No doubt it is technically defective because I drafted it myself. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. As he has pointed out, some of our residential squares in various towns and cities are indeed a credit to this country. One of the most powerful arguments against the leasehold enfranchisement of the buildings in those squares is that it will cause trouble, disappointment and environmental damage. This is a very difficult problem to deal with. I am not saying that my noble friend's new clause will enable that problem to be solved entirely but it will make a valuable contribution towards doing so. I really do think that if Parliament is legislating in this far-reaching manner with regard to leasehold enfranchisement we really ought not in the times in which we live to ignore the environmental effects. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is to be congratulated on having put forward a constructive proposition which will help to deal with the problem —not entirely but to some extent.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord's amendment. The only thing I am surprised at is that he has not included houses in single occupation. It is my experience that this is where most of the problems lie. Perhaps he will explain that when he comes to reply.
1880
I have the good fortune to live in a conservation area on the Grosvenor Estate. It is a matter of great concern that the standards which the estate itself has managed to preserve over a great many years should be allowed to slip. It is a natural characteristic of individualism that people like to paint their houses and flats different colours. I know one house which is in a row of houses designed by Cubitt which have to be painted in cream, with preferably black railings and the same colour doors. It had mock beams put on to it and mullioned windows to give it a sort of Tudor look, which of course is quite unsuitable. I know other houses where the railings have been painted bright cobalt blue. I am not in any way trying to criticise the colour of the party opposite but, architecturally, it is quite unsuitable in that type of setting. I hope that the Bill, which I have always supported and which I commend the Government for introducing, will curtail the excessive individualism of householders who may think that they want to have a house that is more suitable for Capri or the South of France than London in a district which has architecture following the Palladian tradition. Therefore, I commend the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I sympathise with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. However, having read the amendment, I am not sure that in my lifetime I have seen any impediment to the way people enjoy their property of as dirigiste a nature as this one.
Lord Rix: My Lords, much to my surprise I found myself speaking for Amendment No. 174A. However, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I happen to have lived off private roads for the past 18 years. I was chairman of the road committee for 10 years. I found it extremely difficult to get individuals to agree to a consensus when it came to the upkeep of the roads and the sidewalks of the roads. I can see that this would well apply to the frontage of flats and squares of this nature. Therefore, I should like to support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I always welcome it when a noble Lord seeks to give the Executive very extensive new powers. But in this case I fear that my noble friend Lord Campbell has proposed powers which are far too extensive and which are totally unnecessary given the very extensive provisions already included in the Bill which we discussed at some length on Tuesday afternoon. I am sorry that my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon could not join us then.
As the House knows, Chapter IV of the Bill already provides for estate management schemes which can be used to maintain adequate standards of appearance and the amenity of an area. These provide the necessary mechanism for protecting the appearance of leasehold estates after enfranchisement. We have also given additional powers to English Heritage and local planning authorities to promote such schemes in

1881
conservation areas where the landlord fails to do so. I have promised to come forward with amendments at Third Reading which will further improve these arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that it should be the responsibility of the department. Even if that were to be the case, ultimately the department would be advised by English Heritage. Although I therefore share entirely the concerns of my noble friend and others who have supported him, I believe that we have already provided a mechanism for dealing with them and I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am looking at Chapter IV and am trying to find to what extent those who will have responsibility under the few clauses of that chapter will be required to preserve the environmental quality of the buildings concerned. Perhaps that will be done under the amendment that my noble friend will move on Third Reading, but perhaps he will explain the point because this is the crux of the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in support of the Minister. We have had an extensive discussion. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would like to read Tuesday's debate, he will find extensive provisions for ensuring what he wants and extensive assurances from the Minister that in conservation areas local authorities and planning authorities will be the subject of amendments to be brought forward by the Government to our satisfaction on Third Reading. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, we should get on with the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not much relish being told by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, even with a smile on his face, to get on with the Bill, but none the less I have to take that kind of thing in my stride.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I too have problems with Chapter IV. I too have read the extensive debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, and I read it before I tabled the amendment. I was not satisfied that the debate was comprehensive and grappled with the essence of the problem as to whether, under Chapter IV, there would be effective means of implementation to secure our heritage. I may be wrong, but the amendment was tabled in good faith and was not designed to waste the time of your Lordships' House.
In view of the fact that my noble friend the Minister is considering this matter, albeit along lines that are somewhat different from those proposed by my amendment but will nonetheless lead, one hopes, to the same end, perhaps I may have the opportunity of discussing the matter further with my noble friend the Minister between now and Third Reading. On the assumption, which I take for granted because he is always accessible to discussion, that he would be willing to discuss the matter, I should like to withdraw the amendment. I ask for leave to do so and, in doing so, thank all noble Lords for their contribution.
1882
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I am concerned with houses, but I am not concerned with houses in single occupation because, with respect, houses in single occupation do not fall within the ambit of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Amendment of Part III of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987]:
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 162:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Variation of leases under Part IV of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
In section 35(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (variation of lease on grounds that it fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to the computation of a service charge), in paragraph (c), for "exceed" there shall be substituted "either exceed or be less than".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can on a purely technical amendment. In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 238.
Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I drew attention to the question of the consequential effects of enfranchisement of part of a development on the terms, particularly relating to service charges, of the balance of leases where there had been no enfranchisement. The Minister did not accept my protestations about deficiencies. It was put to me that there was already a remedy in the form of the relevant sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and that, if a landlord's right to recover service charges was interfered with, that was dealt with under the injurious affection provisions.
I believe that that is a little unsatisfactory. To deal with the latter point first, the injurious affection provisions meant that the obligation of the enfranchising tenants to pay was needlessly enlarged by the provision. Following the Committee stage, there was some dialogue between myself and the Minister and his officials. In the fullness of time I was given to understand that perhaps after all there was a point with which we could come to terms. Amendment No. 162 is a result of those deliberations.
I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to this point. It may not go as far as I should have liked. I still have reservations about whether the 1987 Landlord and Tenant Act can take into account deficiencies in service charge provisions arising as a consequence of this legislation as opposed to inherent deficiencies of an external kind. However, I must rely on the fact that he and his department have scrutinised the matter with some care. I therefore hope that this technical amendment will remedy that aspect by making a minor amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Amendment No. 238 is consequential upon Amendment No. 162 in that it introduces into the Long Title of the Bill an amendment to include reference to Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Amendment No. 162 seeks to alter that

1883
provision and without Amendment No. 238 there would be no cross-reference in the Long Title. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I intervene to seek some clarification about the amendment. I believe it is a sensible amendment, but I understand that it provides that, where the service charge percentages in the building do not add up to 100 per cent., the landlord may apply to increase them in some way so that they do add up to 100 per cent. It.is in the interests of both the landlord and the tenant that the service charge percentages recoverable under leases should total 100 per cent. of the cost.
I understand that, under Section 38(10) of the 1987 Act, the court may make an order providing for payment of compensation in respect of loss sustained by the variation. In the case of an order being made increasing the percentages which may affect one or more of the tenants, I presume—perhaps my noble friend will confirm this point —that the tenant whose percentage is increased would normally expect an award of compensation to compensate for the economic loss suffered by having to pay however much more it may be than his lease provided, bearing in mind that when he bought the lease he would have received a percentage in it but would have no idea whether the other percentages in the building added up to 100 per cent.
The 1987 Act states that the percentages can be reduced by a variation of covenants if they add up to more than 100 per cent. Again, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there have been cases in which percentages have been varied downwards in this way and whether in such cases the landlords have been entitled to recover compensation for the loss that they will have sustained. I ask this because the circumstances seem to be different here in that the landlords knew that they were entitled to recover more than 100 per cent. If they did so, they were in my view unjustly enriching themselves and I should have thought that it would be unreasonable for them to be able to recover compensation for that loss.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am slightly concerned about the provisions if they mean that people will find that the percentage set in their lease varies. That should give us great cause for worry. I support the point made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine that when buying a lease people see what the percentage will be—and I have seen some recently ranging from 1.3 per cent. to 10 per cent.—but if that is suddenly to be changed, those concerned will have no way of knowing how it relates to others. It is important that, whatever the computation, tenants should be able to understand it precisely and to see that what they are paying is a fair amount.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything mysterious here. The Government did not feel that there was anything wrong with the original wording. Although successful applications for variation may be made under the 1987 Act, I accept
1884
that there may be some ambiguity and I am therefore happy to accept the amendments which have been moved by the noble Earl.
Turning to the points made by my noble friends, I do not think that there is a problem because the provisions mean that one would be paying a larger share of a smaller amount, for example, when half the estate enfranchises. Therefore, the result is that nobody will end up paying any more than they would otherwise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 162A:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
.—(1) Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (Tenants' right of first refusal) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (relevant disposals) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (1A)—
"(1B) (a) subject to paragraph (c), in this Part a relevant disposal shall be deemed to include, where the landlord is a body corporate, the disposal of a controlling interest in the landlord (other than to an associated company of the landlord);
(b) for the purposes of this Part, a person has a controlling interest in a company if, had he been a company, the other company would have been its subsidiary;
(c) this subsection shall not apply if the value of the landlord's interest in any premises to which this Part applies, free from all charges, is less than 50 per cent. of the total asset value of the landlord immediately before the disposal of such controlling interest."
(3) The following section shall be added after section 11—
Further provisions where disposal made in contravention of Part I
11A.—(1) Where—

(a) there has been a disposal of a controlling interest in the landlord to which this Part would have applied had section 4(1B) been in force at the time of the disposal, and

(b) that disposal was made within three years before the coming into force of this section, and

(c) the premises affected by such disposal are still premises to which this Part applies,

the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may, before the end of the period specified in subsection (2), serve a notice on the landlord requiring him to furnish a person (whose name and address is specified for the purpose in the notice) with the particulars specified by section 5 and the date on which such disposal was made; and in the following provisions of this Part any reference to "the new landlord" shall include a reference to the landlord.
(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) above is the period of three months beginning with the date on which this section comes into force.
(3) Any person served with a notice in accordance with subsection (1) above shall comply with the notice within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the notice is served on him."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now almost exactly six years to the day since the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was enacted. Noble Lords may remember that it was enacted immediately before the 1987 general election. Part I of that Act provides a procedure whereby in certain circumstances the tenants in a block of flats are offered the right of first refusal in the event of the freeholder wishing to sell the freehold. In a nutshell, where a freeholder wishes to sell he must state his price, and if the tenants wish to

1885
buy they should be able to buy at that price. If they do not wish to buy, then the freeholder is able to sell elsewhere, but for a period he may not do so except at the same or a greater price.
This Bill gives the tenants active and not passive rights of purchase. Therefore, everything else being equal, it would seem likely as a general rule that this Bill will to some extent render Part I of the 1987 Act superfluous. I am choosing my words with some care because I am generalising. What I believe I can say is, first, that in blocks of flats with less than two-thirds qualifying tenants, as defined in this Bill, enfranchisement can only come passively under the 1987 Act, if at all; and, secondly, this Bill offers nothing to short lease tenants and long lessees who do not qualify under the low-rent test, but those tenants may have rights under Part I of the 1987 Act. So, even after the passing of this Act, the 1987 Act will remain the only legislative avenue by which the tenants of some blocks of flats will have at least some hope of enjoying the control of their own homes which this Bill offers to many long leaseholders at low rents.
Part I of the 1987 Act gave to many tenants the right of first refusal where the freeholder wished to assign his reversion. One of the exceptions to this right, under Section 4(2), was the case of a disposal by a company to an associated company. When that happened, it meant that a property owning company could assign its reversion to a newly created associated company and immediately sell the shares in that company to a third-party purchaser—and could do so without giving the tenants any right of first refusal. From the outset this has been considered a loophole, a defect, in the Act. I suspect, however, that the draftsman was well aware of the possibilities given to corporate landlords to side-step their tenants' right of first refusal. It may have been thought that there was no particular reason why a corporate or any landlord should wish to do this.
Landlords would know that their tenants, as special purchasers, would be likely to outbid any third party if they were interested in buying. If they were not interested in buying, it would not matter whether or not they had that opportunity. Indeed, it is difficult to see why any landlord should not want to give his tenants the first chance to buy in those circumstances.
In fact, this has not altogether been how things have worked out. The published findings of the study into the working and public perceptions of the 1987 Act, carried out for the department in 1991, make this clear. The main way, as I understand it, in which things go wrong is that many landlords sell without first making any offer of first refusal to their tenants. The tenants generally have a measure of protection when that happens because, where they had a right of first refusal under the Act but that right has not been honoured, they are given the right under Section 16 to compel a sale by the purchaser at the price he paid.
This right, of course, does not exist where the reversion has been sold by an associated company share sale. In one case which has recently been brought to my notice, the tenants were ready, willing and able to buy the reversion. The associated company device was used to thwart the tenants, and
1886
ownership passed. The tenants remain ready, willing and able to do a deal with the new purchaser at the price it paid for the shares, but they have no rights under the Act. They have no right of first refusal and no right of buy-out.
The amendments which I am moving to the 1987 Act have been carefully drafted to close this way by which the right of first refusal may legitimately, but in breach of the social intentions of the Act, be circumvented. Section 4 would be amended to give to tenants a right of first refusal in the case of the sale of a controlling interest in a company which owns the freehold reversion to a block of flats where the net value of the reversion is worth at least half the gross asset value of the company. It will be seen that the drafting bends over backwards not to touch genuine commercial transactions to the extent that it may not be 100 per cent. effective for tenants. That may be said of the original legislation and should not be a bar to a modest extension of the provisions of that legislation now.
The second and consequential amendment would, in cases where no right of first refusal had been offered, extend to such share sales the right to buy out the ultimate purchaser, and I should point out that there will be a retroactive element here, as there is in the enfranchisement provisions of this Bill. For three months after the section comes into force, the right of buy-out will be exercisable in respect of disposals made within the previous three years.
I am conscious that, even with the careful drafting of these amendments, all points will not have been covered; some points may need further attention, and there may be anomalies. This is, however, an important loophole in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as I hope and believe my noble friend will recognise, and it should be closed. I would, therefore, ask my noble friend, if these amendments are not perfect as they stand, to recommend their acceptance on the basis that the Government will take this problem in hand and move further and better amendments when the Bill is once again in another place. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because the case of Harley House has caused grave concern to Westminster City Council. The chairman of Westminster's housing committee has written to the Secretary of State for the Environment on this matter because he considers that, in being so involved with the matter of enfranchisement in relation to this Bill, we have tended to overlook the right of first refusal.
Most of the residents and tenants of Harley House are on rack rents or are statutory tenants and had arranged their finance—we are talking about £16 million, so they were prepared to pay quite a substantial sum—but they found that the original freeholder took advantage of a loophole in the drafting and, according to the letter from the chairman of the housing committee,
"created a wholly owned subsidiary company, transferred ownership of Harley House to that company then subsequently sold the company to a third party"—

1887
to a plc. That means that it does not qualify as a "relevant disposal". I shall not quote further from that letter, but it makes it clear that Westminster City Council is disturbed by this case because it has the highest proportion of long leaseholders in the country. It has supported the Bill, which it believes to be an important piece of legislation.
What amazes me is that under employment law if one passes employees from one company to a related company the company's obligations pass with them, but obviously under the Bill that does not apply. If one transfers the property to a related company, one's responsibilities are shed. The property does not have to be offered to the residents and tenants. That is unfortunate, and I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the brevity of my reply will not demonstrate to my noble friends that I am not interested in the subject. I understand it wholly. I have every sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said. I am well aware of the case cited by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
My noble friend has made a, valiant attempt to find a solution to the problem. It is a solution which has eluded us for the past five years. Knowing how difficult it has proved so far—the problem has been examined on a number of occasions since 1987—it is unlikely that we shall find a solution in time for an amendment to be made at this late stage of the Bill. But I can assure the House that we shall continue to examine this issue until a solution is found. Unfortunately, we do not think it would be right to jump in and agree to an inappropriate solution. Having said that, and with that assurance, I hope that my noble friend can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I listened to what my noble friend said. I accept that this may not be the time to insert the amendment into the Bill. I took great comfort from the way that my noble friend approached the problem. He was saying that the department has found no way round the problem during the past five years, but I do not for a moment believe that he was suggesting that it would be anything like that length of time before a solution was found. It should not be left that length of time. I rely on the assurances of his department that the matter will be dealt with in the future, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 169:
Page 85, line 13, after ("section") insert ("68 or").
Page 85, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) the amount of any payment falling to be made by virtue of section 16(2);").
Page 85, line 29, after ("II") insert ("and, in the case of costs to which section 30(1) or 57(1) applies, the liability of any person or persons by virtue of any such provision to pay any such costs").
Page 86, line 9, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue of").
Page 86, line 17, leave out ("Any") and insert ("No").
Page 86, line 17, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue of").
Page 86, line 19, leave out ("borne by that party") and insert ("recoverable by order of any court (whether in consequence of a transfer under subsection (4) or otherwise)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 86, line 28, after ("but") insert:
("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 171. I have had a number of meetings with various noble Lords to discuss the measures we are bringing forward on estate management schemes.
One of the areas of concern is whether there is a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal over the decisions of leasehold valuation tribunals in considering applications for estate management schemes. The answer is that the Bill will give the applicant for an estate management scheme the right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
That right of appeal does not extend to any other person who might be affected by the application or by the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal. We are concerned that where persons have made representations and appeared before the leasehold valuation tribunal they too should have the opportunity of making an appeal against the decision of the tribunal where there are grounds for them to do so. I therefore propose to widen the right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal to include such persons. I hope that that proposal is welcomed by the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does "person" in this case include also a body corporate such as a local authority?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes, it does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
("and
(b) in relation to any proceedings on an application for a scheme to be approved by a tribunal under section 65, paragraph 2(a) of that Schedule shall apply as if any person appearing before the tribunal in accordance with subsection (5) of that section were a party to the proceedings.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Agreements excluding or modifying rights of tenant under Chapter I or II]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 172 and 173:
Page 87, line 44, leave out ("immediate or a superior").
Page 88, line 35, leave out from ("and") to end of line 36 and insert ("subsections (5) to (7) of section 53 shall apply in relation to the lease as they apply in relation to a lease granted under that section.").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Domicile conditions
.Where a tenant of a flat or house who does not occupy it as his principal residence acquires the freehold of the premises in question under the provisions of Chapter I or Chapter III and subsequently sells the freehold within three years at a profit, the Secretary of State may deem him to be domiciled in the United Kingdom for tax purposes irrespective of his actual place of domicile.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Tuesday last week and again two days ago, I revealed the enormous profits that would be made on enfranchisement of high value properties in areas such as Belgravia where leases have 30 years or thereabouts to run. A typical example would be where a property was purchased and then enfranchised at a total cost of just over £1.2 million and then sold shortly afterwards for £1.5 million. That would produce a profit of £276,000, or a little over 22.5 per cent. Where the lease has 40 years to run, the profit would be almost as great, at just over £250,000, and where it has 20 years to run it would be slightly below £250,000. All this is on the assumption that the share of the marriage value granted to the landlord under the terms of the Bill remains unaltered.
Now that the Government, with the vigorous support of the Opposition, have successfully resisted amendments to increase the share of the marriage value attributable to the ground landlord, those theoretical high profits will become a reality. But even if the landlords lose, at least the Treasury will gain to a limited extent—provided that the enfranchising tenant is domiciled in the UK. In the example I have given, the Treasury would receive between £108,000 and £110,000 by way of capital gains tax, less expenses, depending upon whether any other gains had been received by the enfranchiser in the course of the year. It would receive slightly more if the tenant made a habit of enfranchising and therefore became liable to income tax plus higher rate tax. Just 200 such cases a year would raise £22 million for the Treasury. That would be extremely welcome in these days when the Treasury is so strapped for cash that there is talk of making almost everyone pay prescription charges.
However, there is one large fly in the ointment. Rather more than half the people who buy high value property in the most affluent parts of London are domiciled outside the UK. The amendment is in no way designed to discriminate against them. On the contrary, it is designed to treat everyone equally: to create a level playing field, as it were—and I am sure that we are all in favour of level playing fields these days. The Californian multimillionaire cited frequently to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would have to pay his fair whack. What could be fairer than that, since any Englishman who made a similar profit in the United States, or in most other countries, would have to pay tax, irrespective of his place of domicile.
Acceptance of the amendment would not merely ensure equal treatment for everyone in the United Kingdom who happens to be resident in the United
1890
Kingdom; it would bring us into line with normal international practice. The amendment does not of course infringe Commons privilege in any way: I have taken the trouble to ascertain that fact. It should be noted also that the power is permissive and not mandatory. So the Secretary of State could establish such exemptions for borderline cases as he thought appropriate, or could decide not to implement the rule at all if public opinion permitted him so not to do. The wording has been checked by drafting experts and lawyers and found to be without blemish. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will look at the amendment sympathetically. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made out a perfect case. He quoted the United States of America. The tax authorities in the USA are endeavouring, under unitary tax proposals, to tax British companies on their total world profits. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of that fact and is fighting the tax authorities in the USA.
My noble friend stated that under the Bill one investor must give to another investor half the marriage value. He knows that I never agreed with that and never shall. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if the lessee does not happen to be domiciled in this country he will escape paying capital gains tax. That must be wrong. In any event, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking for ways of obtaining more money in order to reduce the deficit. It is wrong to make a gratuitous gift to people who do not live in this country; it is bad enough to make a gratuitous gift at the expense of the landlord to people who do live here.
I believe that my noble friend should accept the amendment. I hope that he will not say that it will upset the double taxation agreements with the various companies. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the amendment contains a discretionary power. If there were to be a violation of any double taxation agreement that could be overcome. I hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically at the amendment, which has great merit. The wording can be changed at a later stage if it is incorrect but I think that the Government should accept the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am in full sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It is offensive that non-resident leaseholders should be able to buy a property and even more offensive that they should be able to do so at a large discount. It is more offensive still that they should be able to take away the profits tax free. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will point out all kinds of objections to the amendment. I am in full sympathy with the intention of the amendment, which is to take into our taxation system some part of the profits. To that extent I support it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in moving the amendment and of my noble friends in supporting it. It was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to

1891
consider the fact that the Treasury needs every available source of funding that it can get its fingers on. But I cannot possibly accept the new clause and the reasons are many. First, a tenant of a house has to be resident anyway in order to be able to enfranchise. Therefore, the reference to Chapter III has no meaning. Secondly, the clause will have no effect at all on people who may not have resided in their flat but live elsewhere in England or Wales. Such people are already liable to taxation on gains from the disposal of property. In the case of overseas residents, the new clause may well be considered discriminatory against Community nationals under European law; and a company freeholder cannot have a domicile anyway.
Thirdly, its effect will be rather swingeing because where it does bite it will apply the deemed domicile for all tax purposes. That would not be fair. Equally, if the tenant is to be liable for capital gains tax it is not clear whether he may offset losses on any other property against the profit on the house or premises. Fourthly, the new clause does not suggest how the Secretary of State might become aware that the ex-tenant in question has disposed of the property in the first place, let alone made a profit.
I shall not discuss at great length the issue of the marriage value. We have had many discussions and my noble friends and I disagree. I hope that having explained the serious faults in the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is persuaded to withdraw it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Boardman, for their support. The amendment has arisen later than I had expected and many noble Lords who might have supported it have had to leave. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, it is offensive that people can buy property at a discount, sell, and pay no tax on it.
The Government's objections do not stand up. How can the provision discriminate against nationals of other EC countries if they are treated exactly the same as the rest of us? At present the discrimination is all the other way. If they can escape taxation while those resident and domiciled in this country suffer taxation it is we who are discriminated against.
Amendment No. 14, which was agreed to, covers residents of every kind and definition, and merely provides that one must have lived in the property for three years out of the previous 10 years to qualify. That is not residential as the term is normally understood. There are many borderline cases, and I am afraid that the Minister is wrong.
It is true that in current circumstances the Treasury needs every penny, and although that is not the main reason for tabling the amendment, I agree that every little helps. Public opinion supports the amendment, to the extent that it is aware. The amendment does not discriminate. It brings us into line with other countries, in particular the United States of America and other industrialised countries. It is permissive; if it is faulty the Secretary of State need not apply the provision, or can improve upon it. I believe that the other place should at least be given a chance to look
1892
at the amendment, which is supported by the Country Landowners' Association and similar organisations. In those circumstances, I must test the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 174A:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of occupants who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill
.Any provision in any lease or sublease of any residential flat which prohibits the lessee or sub-lessee from providing accommodation therein for a person who is mentally handicapped or mentally ill, shall be unenforceable, unless the behaviour of that person infringes the right of occupants of other flats in the same building to quiet enjoyment thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who was to move the amendment, it has fallen to my lot. The noble Lord was present in the Chamber until a moment ago but rather like the bad fairy in the pantomime he has disappeared. He has left me as an inadequate understudy for I am unaware of the arguments which he had intended to put forward.
However, on reading Hansard I was encouraged, as no doubt were others, by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee to his preference for a general anti-discrimination Bill. I assumed that as Government spokesman he was speaking for the Government; but in an earlier letter to me dated 18th March the noble Lord was not as generous. He referred to a general Bill dealing with such discriminatory covenants. I hope that I may rely on his later, more helpful and more logical reference made on 22nd March in your Lordships' House to a general Bill aimed at non-discrimination.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has returned to his seat but I am afraid that he is a little late because I am already moving the amendment. I too share the preference for general antidiscrimination legislation. However, the fact is that we do not have such legislation; nor does what I know of the parliamentary programme and the Government's expressed intentions lead me to believe that a rights Bill is just around the corner. But we have the Housing and Urban Development Bill in front of us today.
We have evidence that discriminatory clauses are written into leases. The somewhat notorious case, now happily remedied, suggests that if anyone had the time to search leases they would find many more examples. Given the opportunity to prevent what we all agree to be wrong I find the technical argument against doing something about it unconvincing. Parliament has the job of asserting people's rights. As this small assertion of rights seems to be within the scope of the Bill and can hardly be said to offend the rights of other parties I warmly supported my noble friend when he first moved the amendment in Committee. I use the word "friend" in a non-political sense. It is said of the man who waited for the perfect day to plant his bulbs while letting slip the opportunity of quite suitable days that his garden the following spring was somewhat bare. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am covered in shame for not being in the Chamber when the amendment was called and I apologise to your Lordships. What I say first and foremost is: thank heaven for the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
I drafted this new clause. I hope that your Lordships will find that it is not only short, clear in its meaning and certain in its effect but also that it has a worthy purpose. I say that for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already put before the House. I wish to stress that the new clause ensures that people who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill will be allowed to live in residential flats unless their behaviour disturbs other people in other flats in the same building.
Why should not mentally handicapped and mentally ill people be allowed to live in their parent's flats? To have leases or sub-leases which prevent them from doing so is, in my opinion, cruelly discriminating. I first discovered that that was happening when my late wife and I lived in one of the nearest and largest blocks of flats here in Westminster. We were deeply shocked when we found that a clause in our lease, which was a long lease, prevented our youngest daughter, who is mentally handicapped, from being there with us. We decided to ignore the clause by having her to stay with us in our flat from time to time.
I doubt whether the landlord's agent discovered that we were in breach of covenant and no proceedings were taken against us. That was some years ago and inquiries which I made at the time revealed to me that discriminatory clauses were common in many of the leases of flats in the London area and elsewhere. I became chairman of MENCAP soon after that happened and I made inquiries there. I found that it was a fairly common practice. I have no reason to believe that the practice has since been dropped.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde kindly wrote to me in March as follows:
"I sympathise strongly with your desire that no one should be prevented from leasing a flat simply because he or she is mentally handicapped or mentally ill. Such discrimination is clearly wrong. I should be interested to know whether in practice it is common for leases to discriminate in this way".
As to whether the practice is still common, I have not the facilities, the opportunities or the authority to carry out a national survey. I am not sure whether my noble friend has, but he would be in a better position than I to do so. However, I ask my noble friend to accept the evidence which, from personal experience, I have already given.
In his letter my noble friend went on to say that he does not believe that this Bill is the right place for the inclusion of provisions to prohibit discriminatory covenants. He points out what Part I does. He then says:
"The right place would be a general Bill dealing with such discriminatory covenants".
I am puzzled that my noble friend says that this Bill is not the right place in view of what is stated in the Long Title. It is the longest and most detailed Long Title that I have seen for some years. This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I admit that it deals with long leases, leasehold enfranchisement and other specific matters,
1894
but it also deals with a wide range of matters concerning housing and urban development. If the new clause were to be inserted and if my noble friend considers that the Long Title needs some small further amendment, that could be done either by manuscript late this evening or on Third Reading. It is a small technical point which can be overcome quite easily.
Surely, the point is that if we do not deal with this problem now in this Bill, we shall miss a great opportunity to remove a serious injustice. If we wait for general anti-discriminatory legislation which we all hope—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, agrees with me—will come, we may have to wait for some years. A Bill is passing through the other place. It does not deal with this point but does deal with certain other matters of discrimination. However, the Government have made it clear that it will not reach the statute book this Session. We do not know whether there will be a government Bill next Session or what fate a Private Member's Bill would suffer in the next Session.
I beseech your Lordships to realise that this matter needs to be dealt with. We should be ashamed of such practices and try to put them right. That can be done in this Bill and I hope that my noble friend will agree to advise your Lordships to do so. beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, when I came into the House I had no intention of speaking in the debate. However, I am so profoundly shocked by what I have just heard that I rise to support my noble friend. I was sufficiently long in government to be fully aware of the kind of answers which are put before Ministers who must respond to amendments of this kind. Therefore I am apprehensive as regards the reply which we are likely to receive. I am sure that all kinds of reasons, as indicated by my noble friend, will be produced as to why this is not the right opportunity to accept the amendment.
I recall the vigorous measures that I as a Minister, along with my colleagues, took in government to make arrangements for mentally handicapped people to live in the community. It was a central plank of government policy to do so. If this kind of discriminatory clause in leases is commonplace, that is entirely in conflict with government policy as it has existed for a considerable time. Therefore, there is a clear obligation on the Government to take this opportunity to do something about it or, if not, to indicate that they will take a very early alternative opportunity to do something about it. I warmly support my noble friend.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I also support my noble friend. I have experience of mentally handicapped members of the family. Their condition was not severe but they needed sometimes to go into hospital. It is very important to be able to help them in every way. It is possible to help them in a far better way within the community where they are able to be with other people and learn a straightforward and honest way of life such as we all try to lead. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It affects

1895
a great many people and is very important. As already mentioned, this Bill provides an excellent opportunity to prevent such discrimination.
6 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I, too, hope that my noble friend the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment. I live in a part of Surrey where we have six hospitals dealing with mentally-handicapped patients. I happen to be president of the friends' association of one of them. Many mentally-handicapped people contribute enormously to the community. If they are to be barred from living with their relatives under the terms of the Bill, it will deprive not only the community but also their families of a great deal of pleasure. I very much hope that my noble friend will think carefully about the proposal.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when we were in Committee I am sure that the House will remember that the amendment was one of the last with which we dealt very late one night. In the absence of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Rix, I moved the amendment on their behalf from this Dispatch Box. It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I support the movers who are present in the Chamber today. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board the arguments and that he will give us a rather less dusty response than that which he gave me—admittedly rather late at night—in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to put on record our support for the amendment. I was shocked to discover that the problem, so ably explained by the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Renton, existed. In my innocence I had assumed that any such provision would have been against public policy and unenforceable on that ground. I am worried about the amendment's reference to "quiet enjoyment". Other noble Lords have much greater expertise in conveyancing terminology than myself, but I wonder whether the wording is appropriate. However, whether "quiet enjoyment" in the literal sense is quite the right way of expressing it matters not a jot. But we must put on record the importance—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that that is the term of art in this branch of the law which is appropriate in these circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I raised the issue because I wondered whether it would be possible for the behaviour of the people to whom the amendment refers actually to interfere with "quiet enjoyment". That sort of interference normally comes from a landlord. I did not want noble Lords to be confused about the literal meaning of "quiet enjoyment"; in other words, residing in one's flat without hearing noisy behaviour and the sort of thing that has perhaps led to some of the problems that underly the proposal are not what is referred to. However, I fear that I am
1896
in danger of attempting to draft out loud, which is the very last thing that one should do. I simply wish to express my support for the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment has had an interesting time, both in Committee when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and today when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am glad that my noble friend managed to arrive here in time. The story that he recounted was one that he had told me in private. I believe that it was right for the whole House to hear it.
I did not feel able to accept the amendment in Committee because I did not think that this Bill was an appropriate place for the inclusion of provisions to prohibit discriminatory covenants. At that time I suggested that a general Bill aimed at nondiscrimination might be the appropriate place. However, I have, as I said I would, considered the matter further. I am not aware of any current plans for a general non-discrimination Bill. Therefore, in the light of the support that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, received today and the common sense way in which the amendment was moved, I am content to accept an amendment of the type proposed for the Bill if it is your Lordships' wish. But, unfortunately, the drafting of the amendment is not quite right. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Government to return on Third Reading with our own amendment which would then be acceptable to noble Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and before the noble Lord, Lord Rix, replies to the debate—which he should do because he kindly moved my amendment—perhaps I may make a comment. We are well accustomed to parliamentary counsel thinking that they can do better than us, but what they really want to do is to do it differently. If that is the case, I am happy. However, I do not think that there is much wrong with the legal effect of the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall bear that point in mind and certainly mention it to parliamentary counsel.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the response that I have received from the Minister and, indeed, from all Members of your Lordships' House. I am also most grateful for the wonderful support that I have received on this occasion. I am pleased that the amendment has been accepted, albeit with some slight change of wording about which I am sure the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can come to a quiet arrangement. We are absolutely delighted. I am personally extremely delighted because I shall receive the credit for it, as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to withdraw his accusation that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was the bad fairy and perhaps designate him as a good one.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I shall be delighted to subscribe to the fact that the noble Lord is a good fairy. I only hope that he is able to wave a magic wand in another place in regard to an anti-discrimination Bill in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 175:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Property owned by cathedral church
. There shall be no right under Chapter 1 or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which is vested in the capitular body of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and of the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Strathcona, it falls to me to move the amendment. Unlike Amendment No. 174, thankfully, the amendment needs little explanation. It is designed to exclude cathedral property—notably that in cathedral closes—from the provisions of the Bill, broadly in line with exemptions already granted to the National Trust and with those covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, (if it is accepted by another place) regarding other historic properties.
The overall number of properties involved is small. No one would ever accuse deans and chapters of being wicked or rapacious landlords—the sort of people at whom this part of the Bill is generally aimed. There is little need to describe the unique beauty and tranquillity of our cathedral closes. They have retained their individual character because of integrated long-term planning made possible by the enlightened management policies of their governing bodies. Closes are usually an oasis of peace and tranquillity in the urban environment. Moreover, they are accessible to everyone, not just those resident in them. Agreement to the amendment would be a small concession for the Government to make, but it would be a positive way to demonstrate their real concern for charities. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am bound to say that I have a certain sympathy for the amendment, but not as drafted. I have in mind the words,
"property which is vested in the capitular body of the cathedral church".
I say that because chapters own a great deal of property outside a cathedral close. But where there is a cathedral close in a conservation area, I think that there is merit in the amendment. However, in my view, it goes far too far. I know, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford knows, of chapters which own property that is right outside conservation areas and which, indeed, should be subject to the Bill as drafted. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, there is some merit in looking at the matter. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I am most grateful to him for bringing it forward. I fully accept the qualifications suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. But my
1898
concern certainly would be for those medieval cathedrals which were of course in origin monastic foundations and to that extent religious and community buildings. That religious and community focus still remains, though they are now run by deans and chapters. They draw the crowds, whether tourists or others, because they are a focus of the community. For that purpose, they need communities and people to run them.
However, I have to say that there is something in the make-up of the clergy that sometimes makes it extremely difficult for them to get on on with one another. But putting that on one side—fortunately none of my colleagues is present—I think there is a risk that under the provisions of this Bill properties in our mediaeval cathedral closes could be alienated. There is some risk that if in future a further development is needed because of changing circumstances in order to enhance the community aspect of a building, that may be that much more difficult because the property is no longer available to the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral. I do not wish to engage in special pleading on behalf of the Church but I feel there is some substance in what is being proposed here, albeit in an amended form. I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Renton: My Lords, subject to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde may have to say, I too am impressed by the arguments in favour of this amendment. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I should have thought—this is a question of fact which is very difficult to ascertain —that most of the properties which would be covered by the amendment would be in or near cathedral closes. The noble Lord shakes his head. He may know better than I.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Perhaps he should consult the Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral to discover exactly which properties they hold.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that there are Church properties outside cathedral closes. There is no doubt about that. But I was not aware they owned large blocks of flats away from the cathedral. In principle I support this amendment. I am not aware of the technicalities that are involved but in principle I would think it unacceptable certainly for cathedral closes to have their character changed and for the domination by the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral to be disturbed by the leasehold enfranchisement of properties within the closes. I think this is a matter which deserves the serious attention of the Government.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for having proposed this amendment in the absence of all the noble Lords who have added their name to it, including my noble friends. I am grateful for the comments of the right reverend Prelate who feels there is cause for concern here.

1899
The amendment seeks to disapply both the enfranchisement and lease renewal provisions in Chapters I and II of this Bill to property which is vested in the capitular body of a cathedral church. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, thinks that this is a safeguard which is necessary to preserve the appearance of the property around our great cathedrals.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull recently met my honourable friend the Minister for Housing in the hope the Government would accept this amendment. He knows that we cannot accept it—perhaps he passed that on to the noble Lord, Lord Monson—because, quite simply, it is unnecessary. The capitular body of a cathedral church may own property near to a cathedral for various reasons and, of course, that property may or may not be of historic or architectural importance. I am sure that the noble Lord accepts that there is no issue in respect of property which has no heritage value.
Properties near to, but separate from, the cathedral are, I understand, usually run in a commercial manner, as any landlord would run a property. As far as the rights of tenants are concerned, it makes little difference who their landlords may be. There is no reason at all why the enfranchisement provisions in this Bill should not apply to any such property let on long leases.
In the case of Canterbury Cathedral, to take one of the best-known examples, I understand that it is unlikely that many tenants will enfranchise. Most of their property is either let on short leases, or consists of two or three storey buildings above shops which are excluded by the 10 per cent. commercial threshold exemption. The noble Lord is concerned that enfranchisement rights might be extended by some future government to short leases, or that the 10 per cent. commercial threshold might be reduced. However, we cannot speculate on what future governments might do.
I appreciate that some residential properties, such as those in the Cathedral close at Salisbury for example, are more closely related to the Cathedral. They indubitably form an integral part of the architectural ambience of an attractive and historic area. Your Lordships may be surprised that the cathedral authority has chosen to let much of this residential property on long leases. Where this has been the case, again, I can see no reason why the residential leaseholders should not be able to enfranchise. Indeed—this is the point of the amendment—many of them may have already done so, under the provisions of the 1967 Act. Capitular bodies were not exempted landlords for the purposes of that Act.
We have debated estate management schemes at length. Several amendments have been incorporated to improve and strengthen the concept. I have undertaken, as I said, to move yet more amendments at Third Reading. The House has welcomed the changes made already and those still to come, and has acknowledged the power of the estate management scheme as a weapon in the heritage armoury. It is for
1900
this reason that I am convinced that the amendment, though laudable in aim, is totally unnecessary. There is no cause for concern about cathedral closes. There are adequate safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the undeniable quality, beauty and architectural heritage of some of the buildings in them is maintained for future generations. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will feel he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he indicate whether there is any possibility that the Government would look favourably upon a compromise amendment at Third Reading which would allow such tenants to extend their leases while preventing enfranchisement?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has to prove that enfranchisement would be detrimental to cathedral closes. As he has not been able to do so, I cannot offer him any comfort for Third Reading.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I must say I am disappointed in that reply. There obviously seems to be no room for compromise here at all. I am grateful to all those who have spoken in favour of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, thinks it goes too far. Perhaps it does and it would be nice to think we could come back on Third Reading with a compromise amendment. I thought this was supposed to be a Conservative Government and that the Conservatives were in favour of conserving all that is good in our country and had a respect for tradition. I do not see much sign of that at the moment. My inclination, as I cannot be here late on Tuesday, would be to press this amendment to a Division. However, that might be unfair upon the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the other noble Lords who added their names to this amendment, as they may wish to return with a compromise amendment just to see whether they can get it accepted on Third Reading. I do not wish to take it upon myself to press the amendment now, lose it and then not have an opportunity for the noble Lords to return with a compromise amendment. That being the case, I shall withdraw the amendment on the understanding that a compromise amendment may well be introduced at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 [Power to prescribe procedure under Chapters I and II]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 178:
Page 91, line 44, leave out ("provide") and insert (", in particular, make provision—
(a)").
Page 91, line 46, at end insert:
("(b) for the payment of a deposit—

(i) by a nominee purchaser (within the meaning of Chapter I) on exchange of contracts, or

(ii) by a tenant who has given a notice under section 39; and

(c) with respect to the following matters, namely—

1901

(i) the person with whom any such deposit is to be lodged and the capacity in which any such person is to hold it, and

(ii) the circumstances in which the whole or part of any such deposit is to be returned or forfeited.").

Page 92, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 89 [Notices]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 179 to 181:
Page 92, line 10, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 92, line 17, after first ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 92, line 28, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 90 [Orders and regulations]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 93, line 16, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Part").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [General interpretation of Part I]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 94, line 20, after ("is") insert ("(unless the context otherwise requires)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monk Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 183A:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:
Exceptions to the right to buy
(".—(1) In paragraph 10(1) (groups of dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act (exceptions to the right to buy)—

(a) for the words "persons of pensionable age", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "elderly persons"; and

(b) for those words, in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "persons aged 60 or more".

(2) For paragraph 11 (individual dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by elderly persons, and

(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person who was aged 60 or more (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

(2) In determining whether a dwelling is particularly suitable, no regard shall be had to the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in section 181 (jurisdiction of county court), any question arising under this paragraph shall be determined as follows.
(4) If an application for the purpose is made by the tenant to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the service of the landlord's notice under section 124, the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) If no such application is so made, the question shall be deemed to have been determined in favour of the landlord.
(6) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the 1985 Act (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause and the consequential amendments to Schedule 21, Amendments Nos. 236A and 236B, return us to the subject of right to buy and housing for the elderly. At present unless a property is part of a sheltered group landlords have to apply to the Secretary of State in every case for a statutory determination. Since this arrangement started in 1989 there have been some 4,000 applications. That is a very bureaucratic exercise. Determinations have also taken an inconveniently long time.
The Association of District Councils has long felt that a more automatic and less restrictive arrangement would be preferable. Therefore, in Committee on 29th March I moved an amendment to change paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985, the provision which deals with sheltered housing. That amendment recognised modern developments in call systems by removing the need for either a resident warden or a common room provided an appropriate call system is installed. My noble friend the Minister felt that that amendment went too wide. However, he proposed further discussion of the matter. In view of that offer the Committee permitted me to withdraw the original amendment. I am glad to say that the subsequent discussions produced a way forward, which we managed to identify after some discussion and much help, hence the new clause.
This time the proposed new clause relates primarily to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 of the 1985 Act. That is the provision under which landlords ask the Secretary of State to make determinations excluding pre-1990 housing from the right to buy. The Secretary of State must make such determination if he is satisfied that a property is particularly suitable for people of pensionable age and was let for occupation by such persons.
Your Lordships may also recall that paragraph 11 was inserted by an amendment agreed by this House by a large majority in 1989, against an extremely tight parliamentary timetable. Therefore, it is perhaps lacking in some refinement of detail which might otherwise have been possible.
The purpose of the new clause is very simple. It is designed to remove the need for a reference to the Secretary of State if the tenant is content to accept the landlord's view that his or her home is elderly persons' housing. As the law stands at present, there is no provision for finding out whether the tenant agrees with the landlord that that is so. If the tenant makes an application under the right to buy the landlord must apply to the Secretary of State within the somewhat short period of four weeks. The landlord is not given time to discuss with the tenant whether he wants to pursue a right-to-buy claim. In fact, the landlord could probably be criticised for attempting any such discussion. I bear in mind that the Minister said in Committee that the majority of decisions made by the Secretary of State were in the landlord's favour in any case.
The present arrangements require landlords to put a detailed case to the department, even if the tenant is ready to accept that the property is particularly suitable for elderly people and even though that is the view the Secretary of State takes in many instances. That is not merely a nuisance for landlords, it is also a nuisance for tenants at times because the tenant in his turn has to be invited to comment on the landlord's submission. That can be a particular burden on an elderly tenant. I gather that as a result tenants not infrequently withdraw their right-to-buy claim even before a decision is arrived at.
The proposed new clause would allow the landlord to respond to a tenant's right-to-buy claim by deciding to deny the right to buy. However, the tenant on his side would have the right to ask the Secretary of State whether the landlord was correct. In other words, the local authority makes a decision within set guidelines but the tenant has a right of appeal to the Minister. If the tenant asks the Secretary of State to step in, the department will doubtless ask the landlord for all his reasons, as now, and go through the same detailed procedures that we have at present. However, under the proposed new clause the process would be necessary only if the tenant was not satisfied with the local authority's decision. I believe that that is a useful contribution.
The new clause also makes another change which I believe to be worth while. Paragraphs 10 and 11 currently provide for housing to be excluded from the right to buy only if particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age and let to such persons. That precise linkage with the qualifying age for state pension seems to me to be inappropriate. Under the new clause the question would be whether the housing was particularly suitable for elderly people and had been let for occupation by a person aged 60 or more.
I know that many local authorities have allocated elderly persons' housing to tenants from age 60 even if they were fit and active in order to avoid the need for a further move in a few years' time. I do not believe that local authorities should have to run the risk of losing the ability to retain their elderly persons' housing as a result of such perfectly sensible actions which they have taken from time to time.
The two amendments to Schedule 21 are consequential and repeal provisions which are rendered otiose as a result of the new clause.
Finally, the new clause would make only modest changes, but, I believe, with advantage to tenants, to local authorities as landlords and to the Government by reducing the unnecessary number of referrals to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, having put my name to Amendment No. 183A I am delighted to support it as proposed by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton.
As chairman of the Rural Development Commission, which has been concerned with this matter since at least 1989, I am obviously anxious that wherever possible elderly people in rural areas are able to continue to live in their communities close to relatives and friends. That presupposes the availability of property suitable for their needs. Properties built for the elderly in rural areas may not always be to the same specification applicable in urban areas but such properties, once sold, are no more easily replaced.
The amendment allows a more flexible view to be taken of what constitutes an elderly person's dwelling. It will safeguard the availability of such housing in rural areas and it will remove the bureaucracy and uncertainty in the present system. For those reasons I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House would also like to support the amendment. We believe that it proposes a sensible way forward which places the presumption of a decision at local level where all the circumstances can be taken into account if there is a clear need for such housing to remain available for renting and long leases. Therefore, we very much support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I happen to live in a rural area when I am not in London. In my old constituency of Huntingdonshire I was familiar with the problem which arises when working people come to the end of their working lives and for one reason or another cannot continue to live in their present home. It may be close to a factory or a cottage tied to the former employment, which may not necessarily be farm work. Farm workers are often treated with great care by their employers in such circumstances. For various reasons retired people then start looking for somewhere to live. The problem does not arise only in rural areas. To the extent that the amendment would help them when they have found somewhere, it is worthy of support.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, as I did at the previous stage. A moment ago we discussed discriminatory provisions. By substituting for "pensionable age" the terminology, "persons aged 60 or more", I am glad that any discrimination between men and women who reach pensionable age at different times can be avoided. That is perhaps a side issue.

1905
While I strongly support the amendment, I have one small anxiety. At paragraph 11(2) (b) of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act which is to be substituted, there is a reference to property let to a physically disabled person. I have difficulty in understanding the purpose of that reference at that point because the provision is largely directed to housing designed for elderly people, although there is no clear cut division between the two. What worries me is that under the existing legislation there is the possibility—albeit it relies on the Secretary of State—to except from the right-to buy provision property suitable for occupation by a physically disabled person. That has gone from the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister can help me on that.
I was aware that the amendment was promoted by the Association of District Councils. About an hour and a half ago I received a telephone call from that body. I returned the call expecting it to be an answer to that question only to discover that it wished me to chair a session at its conference. My diary is therefore fuller but my knowledge no greater. If the noble Lord can help I should be grateful.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I welcome the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. We have debated the right to buy in housing for elderly people on many occasions in the past. The legislative history on the subject has borne an uncomfortable resemblance to a tug of war between the interests of tenants wishing to buy their homes and landlords wishing to retain them for reletting. I share the hope of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton that modest changes in the legislation will prove to be of benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked an interesting question about physically disabled people.
I understand that the reference in paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 as enacted was repealed in 1988 as a result of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It was thought at that time to be discriminating against people with disabilities. It was therefore a perfectly appropriate question to ask. I hope that that is the correct answer. If it is not, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
I thank my noble friend for bringing forward a beautifully drafted and crafted amendment which the Government can accept. I am sure that it is welcomed by the whole House.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say a word of thanks to my noble friend and to all the people who have supported me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 183B:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Right to require former landlord repurchase
.—(1) In the circumstances and subject to the conditions stated in this section, a former secure tenant has the right to require repurchase by the former landlord.
(2) The right to require repurchase shall cease to exist where the former secure tenant disposes of the interest
1906
acquired under the right to buy or right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms, or where he ceases to occupy as his residence the dwelling house in which the interest is held.
(3) Where a dwelling house is repurchased under the provisions of this section, the price payable by the former landlord shall be—

(a) where the dwelling house was purchased under the right to buy, the price for which it was purchased; or

(b) where the dwelling house was acquired on rent to mortgage terms, the sum of the initial payment and any subsequent payment made in pursuance of such an acquisition, or, such other amount as is agreed between the former landlord and the former secure tenant.

(4) Where a local authority makes any payment to a former secure tenant in relation to a repurchase under the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall issue to that authority a supplementary credit approval, within the meaning of section 54 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (supplementary credit approvals) in an amount equal to the price payable for, and for the purpose of, repurchasing the dwelling house.
(5) The sum of payments made under this section in any year shall not exceed an amount to be prescribed annually by the Secretary of State, after consulting persons who appear to him to be representative of local authorities.
(6) In this section—

"former secure tenant" means a secure tenant who has exercised the right to buy or the right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms; and such a tenant has the right to require repurchase.

"the right to require repurchase" means the right, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions stated in this section, to require the former landlord to repurchase the interest acquired by the former secure tenant under the right to buy or right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms.

"the former landlord" means the landlord from whom the dwelling was purchased under the right to buy or the right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am returning with an amendment discussed in broad outline at Committee stage. It is the right to repurchase by local authorities. We seek still to avoid homelessness among marginal owner occupiers when their financial situation deteriorates. I bring it back because I hope that an additional section in the clause will meet the Minister's objections which he raised at Committee stage in terms of the overall impact on financial resources.
The amendment requires former landlords to repurchase a house or a flat lost under the rent-to-mortgage scheme and to do so at the original price, with supplementary credit approval so that their power to borrow or to spend for other purposes would not be handicapped by the activity. To reflect the Government's response at Committee stage, subsection (5) provides that the sum total of payments available for that purpose should be prescribed annually by the Secretary of State in consultation with local authority organisations. As I recall, that was the main objection raised by the Minister at Committee stage. I hope that we have now met it.
Underlying the amendment are two propositions. We believe that few people will avail themselves of the scheme because it is not financially attractive compared with the right to buy—the existing scheme. However, we believe that it is such a misconceived scheme, pressing marginal purchasers into a financially unfavourable deal, that a disproportionately high

1907
percentage of them may wish to revert back to being tenants rather than risk losing their homes. I want for them a safe passage back.
All the evidence indicates a growing, continuing, lingering housing crisis arising from failure to invest in our housing stock and because local government until this year was not allowed to recycle fully all its capital receipts from sold-off stock and was not allowed resources to modernise the stock which it held. On the other hand, it is a crisis of ownership. An increasing number of families, who could not afford to do so, bought homes in the 1980s, sometimes because they were denied by this Government the opportunity to rent from the local authority. They now find that they cannot maintain their mortgage payments. Either their housing debts exceed their housing assets, or their financial ability to pay has gone. It is the problem of both negative equity and lack of a mortgage benefit scheme.
Some 300,000 families are more than six months in arrears. The important point for the purpose of the amendment is that most mortgage default is on cheaper housing. In other words, default is a problem of low or suddenly falling incomes rather than high housing costs. We fear that, if unamended, the Bill will force more people into that situation.
It is from shortage in the housing market of property to rent that most other problems flow. Unable to rent, most young people are forced to buy. Those who cannot afford even to do that have joined the queue for bed and breakfast accommodation. The problem relates to families who are not able to rent and cannot afford to buy. It is silly and deeply anti-social to press low income tenants to move from the security of renting a council house into the swampy land of buying it and subsequently risking default and repossession. Under the Bill those people have that right. We do not now seek to stop them although we may judge the exercise of that right unwise. But if they come unstuck —we suspect that a high proportion of them will do so—we do not wish to punish them further by seeing them homeless. Why will those people come unstuck? If they could afford to buy a council house under the RTB, they would already have gone for that on outright purchase which produces a more financially advantageous deal. With its structured discounts that would be more attractive and cheaper.
By definition the people about whom we speak cannot afford the right to buy and are being encouraged therefore into the financially more disadvantageous scheme of rents to mortgage. They are precisely the tenants who by definition have the lower income and are therefore more at risk. If they go into such a scheme and are partly employed, they will lose the right to any help with housing costs through a housing benefit scheme even though their hqusing costs will rise because they have to take on board insurance costs, repairs and so on.
All the evidence suggests that foreclosures and repossessions are associated with reduced or reducing employment. Therefore, those most marginal purchasers—and they are marginal because it is financially
1908
more attractive to go for outright RTB—will be extremely exposed to the vagaries of their employment situation. The amendment offers them a route back into keeping the home in which they live and from which their children go to local schools, saving considerable family distress and at no cost to the public purse. The Minister may say that local authorities already have the power to do that. We all agree, there is no difference between us in terms of the principles involved. What the amendment provides is what we do not have and that is the resources to make the principle a reality. We need supplementary credit approvals to make it possible, which means that in order to avoid the greater costs of homelessness we are willing to accept the point that the Minister made at Committee stage that the ability to grant supplementary credit approval should be within a finite annual total. Thus it could be staged throughout the course of the year to meet a need which we might otherwise avoid.
In the light of that, we have come back with an amendment specifically designed to address the Minister's criticism in regard to a finite resource in the course of the year. We do not disagree about the principle. Therefore we hope that we may together make available the resources to protect marginal purchasers at risk of losing their homes from actually becoming homeless. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment would give former secure tenants who had purchased under the right-to-buy legislation, the right to require their landlord to buy back their homes at the price they had originally paid. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with right-to-buy purchasers who are having problems with resale, this proposal is not one that I can support.
I am fully aware that former tenants in certain kinds of ex-council flats have been experiencing difficulties over resale. In the present state of the market, lenders are indeed acting very cautiously. But once the market picks up, right-to-buy purchasers, along with other home owners, will benefit. Meanwhile, we are continuing to work with the building societies to do what we can. This seems to me to be the way forward, rather than imposing a duty on the landlord to repurchase.
In some respects, I am somewhat surprised to see this attempt to limit the independence and discretion of local authorities in the way they manage their stock, particularly in the light of the debates we have had over the course of the past few months. The landlord can, as the noble Baroness recognised, already buy back a property from a right-to-buy purchaser if it so wishes and if it seems a reasonable and justifiable use of its resources. In deciding whether to buy back, the landlord must consider the financial implications. This must be right.
By contrast, the new clause would place a duty on landlords to repurchase, giving them no discretion. It provides for central government resources to be made available to enable the landlord to meet the expenditure incurred, but this would be a further call on limited public sector resources. Under our current practices, which are drawn up in consultation with

1909
local authority associations, all resources that are available for housing are allocated to individual local authorities or earmarked for programmes such as Estate Action well in advance of the beginning of the financial year. If this amendment were to become law, we would have to hold back an amount each year to meet repurchase costs.
The new clause, as the noble Baroness explained, seeks to place an annual limit on the sum of payments to be made. This is a modification of what the noble Baroness introduced. The previous amendment would have left the public purse with an open-ended commitment in respect of the properties landlords had been required to repurchase. But the new clause does not make clear how these limited resources are to be allocated. Would there be some sort of rationing and, if so, how would it work? Would it be easier for former tenants to exercise their right in some parts of the country than in others, or would certain types of cases be given priority? Who would decide? The new clause would require someone, whether the Secretary of State or landlords, to take on the invidious job of deciding which applicants for repurchase should be favoured.
Tenants who consider exercising their right to buy have an important decision to make. Home ownership confers a number of practical advantages, and many people in addition derive a satisfaction from the knowledge that the roofs over their heads are their own. But transferring from renting to owning also means coming out of a relatively sheltered system. Home owners who want to move must either sell their home on the open market or let it. Anyone who has sold a home will know that it is not a simple mechanical process: a bargain has to be struck. It has been particularly difficult in recent times because demand has been slack.
The new clause seeks to insulate former public sector tenants from the uncomfortable discipline of the market place by allowing them to sell back to their former landlord. I do not think that would be right. It would be imprudent for tenants to buy their homes in reliance on the landlord bailing them out in the future, because when the time came there might be no money available for this purpose.
I do not suppose that I have given a satisfactory reply to the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suppose that I thank the Minister for that reply, but I found some of the language and phraseology quite extraordinary. First, he makes the point which he made at Committee stage that the Government rely on negotiations with the building societies to prevent such families becoming homeless and therefore having to go into temporary accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation. That includes all the social strain which results for families and children.
All the evidence may be that the building societies are more willing to roll up mortgage debt. All that does is to add to the problem of negative equity and merely postpones the problem to a later date; that is,
1910
unless the Government are hoping that price inflation will again hit the country so that their problems will be resolved in a great inflationary spiral.
Secondly, the Minister makes the point that he does not see how the allocations would be made; whether it would be by the Secretary of State. He produced a list of rhetorical questions. It will be done in exactly the same way as with all other matters of detail. Housing allocations are made in consultation with the local authority associations. I see no problem. That is only one aspect of the whole round of budgetary and financial considerations which are regularly under negotiation, as surely the Minister knows. So there is no departure there.
Thirdly, the Minister says that he does not see why former council tenants should be protected—I do not know who drafted the phrase—"from the uncomfortable discipline of the market place". In devising schemes which push the most marginal people into owner-occupation and then, for many, deny the lifeboat of housing benefit schemes which they would have received if their situation had worsened when they were tenants, the Government must take responsibility for the results. Today we see around us what has happened as a result of pressing people into owner-occupation during the 1980s, with the subsequent housing crisis and domestic stresses and strains that have resulted. The Minister should not walk lightly away and attribute to the: "uncomfortable discipline of the market place" the results, which were predictable and were predicted by us, of his own Government's policies.
Here we are trying to put in safety nets for a small number of people who will come unstuck. We say now that they will come unstuck because the Minister is unwilling to allow us to help them and give them a way back in which they could keep their homes or revert back to being tenants. There is no difference between us in principle. The Minister accepts that. It is simply a matter of resources and at nil cost to the public purse we seek the resources to enable that help to be given.
I have to say shame on the Minister for exposing potentially vulnerable families, in his phrase which will come back to haunt him, to "the uncomfortable discipline of the market place". Now we know from the Minister's own words what exposure to owner-occupation is intended to mean to former council tenants—the discipline of the market place. Given that there is such a gap between us, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15: [Schedule inserted after Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1985]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 230, line 29, at end insert:
("(6) References in this Schedule to the secure tenant's successors in title do not include references to any person entitled to a legal charge having priority to the mortgage required by section 151 B (mortgage for securing redemption of landlord's share) or any person whose title derives from such a charge.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this technical amendment is to protect the position of mortgage lenders who finance the purchase under the rents-to-mortgages scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184A:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause:
("Tenants of housing associations
.Sections 143 to 155 of the 1985 Act shall not apply where the secure tenant is a tenant of a registered housing association.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams. It seeks to exclude tenants of registered housing associations from the rents-to-mortgages scheme. Charitable housing associations are so exempt, but some of the largest housing associations are not registered as charitable, such as the North Housing Association and the North British Housing Association, each of which has about 20,000 properties. Because they are not charitable does not mean that they are therefore commercial. All registered housing associations are prevented from making a profit; all have their fair rents set by the rent officer. But unlike charitable housing, to some extent the associations have seen their stock eaten away by the right to buy. Therefore, like local authorities, they have experienced growing waiting lists for dwindling stock.
Increasingly, as the Housing Corporation has experienced cut-backs which it has passed on to housing associations, the housing associations have to turn to the private financial market to make up the shortfall in funds. However, their capacity to do so is obviously determined by their asset base and the right to buy and now these proposals under the Bill would diminish the asset base on which they can raise new finance.
Thus, this amendment, which seeks to include registered housing associations which are not registered as charities but are nevertheless not commercial organisations, comes with the support of the National Federation of Housing Associations. It also has the active support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which believes that it is inappropriate that the social housing provided by registered housing associations should be lost to the rented stock. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have dealt with this subject before. I support the noble Baroness. My name is on the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since the new clause is concerned with a particular group of housing association tenants, it may be helpful to recall that before January 1989 the majority of tenants of registered housing associations were secure tenants. They had the right to buy provided that they were not tenants of charitable housing associations, trusts or housing associations which had never received public funding. There are now less than 150,000 secure housing association tenancies with the right to buy.
1912
Since January 1989 new lettings by housing associations have normally been on assured tenancies. Such tenancies do not have the right to buy.
Secure tenants of publicly funded non-charitable housing associations have the same rights under the right to buy as secure tenants of local authorities, including the right to buy on shared ownership terms if they cannot afford to buy outright. Rents-to-mortgages is an extension of the right to buy which will supersede the right to shared ownership which the Bill repeals. Secure tenants of housing associations who have the right to buy will naturally expect to have the right to acquire on rent-to-mortgage terms. I do not see how we can defend treating them differently from secure tenants of local authorities. It would be seen as unfair.
It has been suggested that sales under rents-to-mortgages will be financially disadvantageous for housing associations. The immediate capital receipt will indeed be lower than for a sale under the right to buy. But in the long run the total receipt is likely to be greater. That is because the former landlord is entitled to a further payment on disposal or death. Such payments will attract a discount, but only of 20 per cent., which is less than the right-to-buy rate.
It has also been suggested that sales under rents-to-mortgages will replace those under the right to buy and so reduce receipts in the short term. The evidence indicates the reverse; namely, that they will be additional to the right to buy. In the pilot schemes in Basildon and Milton Keynes a number of tenants who made inquiries about rents-to-mortgages went on to make applications under the right to buy. But there was no evidence of right-to-buy applicants transferring to rents-to-mortgages. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely take the point of the Minister that the pass was sold very unwisely by government when they allowed non-charitable but registered housing associations to be exposed to the right to buy and all the subsequent problems. Certainly some of the arguments that we have heard tonight about the problems of rural housing have confirmed the folly of that original decision by Ministers. I was trying here to protect our housing associations from an infliction of still more folly by the Minister which will go on to reduce still further the amount of social housing available for rent. But I expect and appreciate that there are not the numbers here to give support to the amendment that might otherwise be the case. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 [The rent to loan scheme]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 135, line 8, leave out ("73D(1)") and insert ("73D").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190 to 194, and Amendment No. 198. This group of amendments seeks to clarify the circumstances in which the deferred financial commitment in a rent to

1913
loan sale has had to be repaid to the landlord who originally sold the house. There will be cases where to require repayment of the deferred financial commitment on the death of the purchaser could put surviving spouses, other relatives or joint purchasers in the position of having to sell the house in order to repay the DFC. The new Section 73D therefore protects people in that potentially very vulnerable position by providing that the DFC need not be repaid on the death of the purchaser if someone has been living there for 12 months succeeds to the house or if a joint purchaser leaves his share to other joint purchasers who have been living there. In those circumstances the DFC need not be repaid until the survivor sells it, or himself dies.
Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 are designed to deal with, say, the case of where two people succeed to the house but only one of them is resident. Similarly, Amendment No. 192 deals with a case where a joint purchaser dies and does not leave his share of the house to his fellow joint purchasers.
Amendments Nos. 194 and 198 are consequential, making changes to the definition of "rent to loan purchaser". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 135, line 31, after ("but") insert ("immediately").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 186, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 187 to 189. This group of amendments clarifies the ranking of the deferred financial commitment element of the purchase price and certain advances made by recognised lending institutions for the purchase or improvement of the house. The amendments are technical in nature and do not represent any change in policy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 187 to 189:
Page 135, line 36, leave out second ("or").
Page 135, line 37, at end add ("; or (iii) for any combination of those purposes,").
Page 135, line 45, at end insert (";
references to interest payable under a standard security are references both to present and future interest payable thereunder including interest which has accrued or may accrue; and
references to expenses and outlays include interest thereon.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 194:
Page 137, line 3, after ("whom") insert ("or persons for whom or for one or more of whom").
Page 137, line 5, after ("his") insert ("or their").
Page 137, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert (",at the time of the death, the house was the only or principal home of the survivor or the survivors or one or more of them").
Page 137, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert ("the person or persons acquiring it, succeeding to it or surviving in the circumstances whereby subsection (1) applies or on the death of such person or of the last of them for whom the house was, both at the time of such acquisition, succession or survival and at the time of his death, his only or principal home; and").
Page 137, leave out lines 26 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 185, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 190 to 194. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131 [Rent to loan scheme: related amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 138, line 26, leave out ("paragraph") and insert (" "; and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 195 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 196, 197, 199 and 200. This group of amendments is intended to clarify the circumstances in which the purchase price abatement provisions in Clause 132 apply to the rent to loan scheme. As currently drafted, the Bill does not make as clear as it might that the purchase price abatement provisions would apply if the landlord failed to serve an amended offer under Section 63(3). The Bill does not specify the timescale within which an amended offer is to be served, and that could be interpreted as being within the original two-month period. That could clearly be unfair to landlords in circumstances where, for example, the tenant informs the landlord on the last day of that two-month period that he wishes to pay more than the minimum initial capital payment. This group of amendments therefore makes it clear what is to happen in those circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 make the necessary changes to Clause 132 to ensure that the purchase price abatement provisions apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
Page 139, line 5, after ("shall") insert (", before the end of the period specified in subsection (2) or, if later, the expiry of one month from the date when the landlord was so informed of the tenant's intention,").
Page 139, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In section 71—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after "offer", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted "or amended offer";

(ii) in paragraph (d), after "offer" there shall be inserted "or amended offer" and there shall be added at the end "and, in the case of an amended offer, they do not conform with the requirements of section 63(3)"; and

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (b), after "offer" there shall be inserted "or amended offer"; and

(ii) after "63(2)" there shall be inserted "(and, in the case of an amended offer, under section 63(3))" ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 139, line 20, leave out from ("or") to ("that") in line 22 and insert ("where section 73D(l) applies, the person whose selling or otherwise disposing of the house or whose death is, by virtue of subsection (2) of that section, the occasion for payment of the deferred financial commitment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 132 [Abatement of purchase price]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 199 and 200:
Page 139, line 46, at end insert ("or, where an amended offer to sell falls to be served on the tenant under subsection (3) of section 63, has failed to do so within the time limit specified in that subsection ").
Page 140, line 13, after ("offer") insert ("or amended offer").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 in speaking to Amendments Nos. 185 and 195. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 201 to 204:
Page 140, line 46, leave out ("within") and insert ("either during or after").
Page 141, line 9, leave out ("earliest") and insert ("earlier"). Page 141, line 12, at end insert ("or").
Page 141, line 15, leave out from ("sale") to end of line 18.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 201 I shall speak also to the lengthy Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 204. This group of amendments involves purely technical changes to the purchase price abatement provisions of the Bill which provide for the purchase price to be offset by rent paid when a right-to-buy sale is unreasonably delayed by the landlord. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 201 to 204 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 134 [Right to have repairs carried out]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 143, line 8, at end insert:
("(f) the landlord may set off against any compensation payable under the regulations any sums owed to it by the tenant.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment enables the Secretary of State, in making regulations under the right to repair scheme, to allow the landlord to set off any payments of compensation against any outstanding sums owed to it by the tenant.
The enabling power for the right to repair scheme provides for regulations to require landlords to make compensation payments to tenants when their usual contractor fails to complete a repair within a prescribed maximum time. Where the tenant is in arrears with his rent there are strong arguments in favour of not making cash payments to tenants and using any credit to help to meet their debts to the landlord.
Additionally, since the payments of compensation will generally be small and may in some cases exceed the cost of making the payment itself, it will be more cost-effective for the authority to credit the tenant's rent account.
This is a small but sensible amendment. I understand that it is one which is already in place for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not earlier than 7.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Given my previous ministerial and government responsibilities for shipping matters, it probably comes as no surprise to your Lordships that I am particularly pleased to introduce the Bill to this House. I should first like to congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Hertfordshire South-West, Mr. Richard Page, on having successfully steered this Bill through another place. I now bring it before your Lordships' House for approval.
At first blush the Bill looks formidable, but not for the first time appearances are deceptive. Like all good ideas, the underlying aims of the Bill are simple. Essentially it seeks: to unify control of ship registration in the United Kingdom under a registrar general who will be appointed by and be responsible to the Secretary of State; to move the detailed ship registration law from primary to secondary legislation; to make provision for bareboat chartering onto the UK register; and to pave the way for the long overdue consolidation of merchant shipping legislation.
It would be a mistake for anyone to think that this measure was drafted in a vacuum and without regard to real need. It has as its genesis some of the recommendations of the working party which, during the course of 1990 under the joint chairmanship of the then Secretary of State for Transport and the then President of the General Council of British Shipping (now my noble friends Lord Parkinson and Lord Sterling), considered the most appropriate non-fiscal means of assisting the future development of the British flag.
The concepts covered in this Bill therefore take account not only of present requirements but, so far as one is able to plan ahead, future needs also. At the present time merchant ship registration is undertaken by HM Customs and Excise at some 14 regional centres up and down the country. The procedures applied are in line with the precepts laid down by our predecessors in the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. It is a tribute to their foresight that the system that they fashioned 100 years ago has survived the passage of time. It would be pleasant to think that what we are doing today will similarly survive the next 100 years. But I doubt it. Whether we like it or not, technological and political developments nowadays sometimes force us to make rapid changes. That pressure is more likely to accelerate than to diminish in the years ahead.

1917
Thus, when moving toward unification of overall control of ship registration as proposed in Clause 1 of the Bill, the opportunity will be taken to bring merchant shipping registration into line with the computerised system already in place with the Fishing Vessel Register established under the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act and currently being put in place for the Small Ships Register which was established under the 1983 Merchant Shipping Act.
I would not expect such a modest reordering of the system of registration itself to bring in its wake massive benefits. Nevertheless, I expect improvements to flow from this development. The degree of uniformity in administration will be welcome to those who need to use the registers. The intended process of periodic re-registration of merchant ships should also enable a more accurate register to be kept, which is an essential requirement for all whose livelihood is connected with our merchant fleet.
However, I hasten to explain that it is not the intention to computerise all records. Only those relating to ships still operating will be embraced by the new technology. Therefore, the huge leather-bound volumes recording the fortunes of merchant ships of the past—the famous, the not so famous and even occasionally, but only very occasionally, the infamous —will be preserved for posterity.
I am all too well aware that not only this House but Parliament as a whole takes its responsibilities seriously. That is no more evident than in relation to matters of new domestic law. It is unfortunate that the pressures of time, coupled with the needs of modern government, do not permit us the luxury of fully debating on the Floor of this House all the new measures required to meet the needs of modern society. That is a fact of life which we have to face and to which we must adapt or be disadvantaged.
Like its sister industry, aviation, a good deal of British shipping is concerned with international trade. But unlike aviation, shipping has a much longer history. Consequently, it is still working with the legislative system that it has inherited from the past. I mentioned earlier that the provisions of the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act still applied to merchant ship registration. But even that Act was a consolidation of previous merchant shipping legislation. In fact I understand that there have been 33 Merchant Shipping Acts since 1894.
There is a limit to how long we can expect a modern industry to operate in that way. Changes sometimes need to be made rapidly to respond to commercial and political pressures. British aviation has prospered under a system whereby the detail of day-to-day regulation is found not in primary legislation but in secondary legislation. This Bill proposes to treat shipping in the same way as its younger sibling. I fully support that.
Many noble Lords who spoke in the debate initiated a few weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, rightly paid tribute to the reputation of the British flag. The noble Lord has asked me to say that he is sorry not to be able to be in the House this evening but he wishes the Bill well.
1918
Many noble Lords may be surprised that as of today there is no avenue by which a British shipowner can charter a ship to meet a temporary need and operate it under the British flag. The reason is simple. That facility, known as either demise chartering or bareboat chartering, is not currently provided for in our legislation. That is despite the fact that it is widely used by many of our maritime competitors. Leasing is a facility that is used from time to time in the aviation industry. Many consider that it would be a useful adjunct in the shipping industry too. Accordingly, the Bill makes provision for bareboat chartering-in to the UK register.
Before your Lordships express misgivings about the move, I hasten to assure noble Lords that such ships, whatever the length of the charter period, will have to comply with the requirements of UK shipping regulation as it applies to ships which have their primary registration under the red ensign. There will be no exceptions to that requirement. I know that my noble friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has made it clear—no doubt he will wish to repeat it this evening—that 'the Government will countenance no dilution of present standards. There is nothing in this Bill which has or is intended to have that effect.
Since the last consolidation of merchant shipping legislation in 1894 and despite the many pressures on Parliament in the interim, time has nonetheless been found to enact many measures relating to various aspects of merchant shipping. The moment has therefore now come to consider a fresh consolidation. This is the final thrust of this Bill. As noble Lords will see from the schedules, it is long overdue.
I began my introduction by describing the Bill as a simple measure. I end my comments by reinforcing that thought. I know that merchant shipping arouses the interest of many Members of this House. The comments made in the debate some three weeks ago bear witness to that. I do not wish to understate the importance of the Bill, but it is not intended to address all the concerns of the industry. It is a sharply focused measure concerned substantively only with ship registration. This can easily be confirmed by a quick glance through the clauses.
Of the 10 clauses in the Bill the first six replace the existing legislative provisions relating to registration of ships, while the seventh expands the scope of registration to embrace bareboat charters.
Clause 1 creates a central register under the overall control of the registrar general and provides that a register may, as necessary, be subdivided. Clause 2 sets out the criteria for entitlement to register a British ship and identifies those circumstances in which registration may be refused or revoked.
Clause 3 provides for the making and laying of regulations in connection with ship registration. Clause 4 identifies offences relating to a ship's British connection. Clause 5 restates those supplementary provisions currently in Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 relating to fishing vessels. Clause 6, together with Schedule 1, sets out the private law provisions (for instance, law on mortgages) for registered ships. Clause 7 contains an entirely new provision which allows ships registered elsewhere to

1919
be bareboat chartered and temporarily registered under the Red Ensign by those persons qualified to register British ships.
Clauses 8 to 10 contain supplementary and pre-consolidation provisions. Clause 8 introduces Schedules 2 to 5, which deal respectively with amendments consequential on the Act (Clause 2); what is a British ship and with a British flag (Clause 3); with amendments to facilitate or are otherwise desirable in connection with consolidation (Schedule 4) and with repeals (Schedule 5). Clause 9 contains details of interpretation. Finally, Clause 10 makes the necessary provisions for citation, commencement and extent. I would point out that notes on clauses will, I hope, be available shortly.
The Bill is very much a technical measure. It is a measure which both sides of the industry want. It is a measure which has rightly attracted cross-party support in Parliament and I am pleased to see that the Labour Party's 1993–94 Parliamentary Strategy, when referring to its document Full Steam Ahead, says that it will press for the implementation of the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill.
Everyone that I have spoken to is keen to see it in place as soon as possible. I therefore have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: My Lords, I understand that the British shipping industry welcomes this legislation because of its acceptance on to the British register of foreign-owned tonnage that is bareboat chartered to a British company. That will undoubtedly make it possible for some tonnage to appear on the British register that otherwise would not have done so.
However, the legislation does not recognise the importance of maintaining London as a maritime centre of the world. It takes no account of the complex web of shipping services that exist in this country, in spite of our national flag merchant fleet having declined to 33rd in world ranking. The Government appear to believe that all those services will continue to prosper without encouragement. That is not so.
This legislation could provide some much needed impetus to the maritime services industries if the bareboat provision in Clause 7 were extended to additionally incorporate vessels managed by a British company. In this country, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, we have some of the largest ship management companies in the world. More often than not, once the physical management is secured in this country, the commercial management follows suit.
Bringing new business to the United Kingdom requires imaginative and flexible thinking. We must surely be ready to provide a home for the 26 million or so tonnes deadweight of Hong Kong tonnage that is likely to be seeking one after 1997. At the time of the recent debate on the merchant navy in your Lordships' House attention was drawn to the call from the Baltic Exchange—of which I am a member —for a British open register for just that purpose.
1920
Such a register would be without any restrictions and would, we believe, bring untold benefit to all of our many maritime service industries.
The suggestion of the inclusion of British managed tonnage is only a step half-way towards the open register; but at least it would be a step in the right direction and bring some immediate benefit to the service sector of the industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, can consider such an amendment to the Bill.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for the balanced explanation of the Bill that he proffered to the House, and for being prepared to carry it through the House. I welcomed also his comforting words in regard to the attitude of the Government, which will no doubt be confirmed by the Minister, regarding the provisions for ensuring that there is no dilution of standards by reason of the incorporation of bareboat chartering in the provisions of the Bill.
However, it is fair to add that this Bill was substantially improved by a number of amendments that were tabled quite late in the day by Mr. Richard Page on behalf of the Government, and also by the perseverance of my honourable friend Joan Walley, in particular in dealing with the question of the register of British ships being available for inspection and, most particularly, for removing, eventually with the support of Mr. Page and the Committee, the original Clause 8 which dealt with British ships bareboat chartered out to foreign charterers. That exclusion from the Bill was certainly worth while.
Other amendments were also dealt with. But this is not truly a Private Member's Bill; it is a government Bill. I say at the outset that I make no criticism whatever of the noble Lord or of Mr. Richard Page for accepting the responsibility for introducing and carrying the Bill through Parliament, but it is an example of thoroughly bad parliamentary management on the part of the Government. For that the Government's business managers, rather than departmental Ministers, are seriously at fault, though this has happened before in connection with the Department of Transport. In the last Session of Parliament I had reason to complain about a government Bill being carried through the House in this way. It may be that the department should exercise a little more clout in seeking to ensure that there is a place for its legislation.
The fact of the matter—the Minister knows it well —is that there was ample time for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill in the proper way. They could have introduced it in this House. It is not a controversial measure in party political terms and we were not exactly overwhelmed with business earlier in the Session. I want to know from the Minister why that choice was not taken.
It is objectionable that this course should be followed in view of all the constraints on debates that take place when we have a Bill dealt with in this way —no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, at all. The Bill is not as simple as he chose to suggest. The

1921
trouble is that it is complex and is exposed to all the opaque procedures that affect Private Member's Bills. Time becomes of the essence. Because of its significance in principle—the noble Lord did not go to town in stressing how important it was as the Minister did in another place on 12th May, to which I shall allude later on—the choice that lies before the House is either to scrutinise the Bill properly, deploying all the proper procedures with the risk that we may lose the Bill altogether, or to substantially constrain the duty of this House as well as another place to scrutinise the legislation properly. Then, to add insult to injury, I am sure that the Government would have no hesitation in casting blame for the loss of the Bill if the Opposition and perhaps other noble Lords were to opt to ensure that Parliament did its job properly.
Therefore we have a Catch 22 position. The result was no Second Reading in another place. That was not simply my complaint or the complaint of Opposition Members in another place. It was a complaint made by one of the Government's own Back-Benchers, Mr. David Harris, the Member of Parliament for St. Ives, and can be seen very plainly at col. 4 of the Hansard report of the Committee stage proceedings in another place. In addition, substantial amendments were introduced by the promoter very late in the day and clearly at the instigation of the Department of Transport. It appears from that that the department had not done its job properly. No blame attaches to Mr. Richard Page in that regard. There was also a truncated Committee stage, because the Committees in another place dealing with Bills of this kind meet only on a Wednesday morning. Furthermore, there was no Report stage.
If we in this place attempted, and attempted successfully, to amend the Bill I understand that we would be told that the Bill would be lost as it would have to go back to another place for further scrutiny and there is no time for that. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will confirm that that is a correct view. That is a situation which ought never to occur, particularly when we are dealing with matters of considerable significance to our merchant fleet. For this situation the Government's business managers are wholly responsible.
Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that, despite this difficulty, I believe that the Bill is susceptible of amendment. I would be prepared, provided the Minister. is prepared himself tonight to give far more precise undertakings about certain issues than have been given in another place, to forgo the need for a Committee and Report stage for the Bill. I would ask him to be precise about this. What I am particularly concerned with is legislation to ratify IMO conventions, in particular the convention of 1989 dealing with salvage. I ask him to give a clear undertaking that the provision will be forthcoming early in the next Session of Parliament and that, if necessary, the Government will at the same time incorporate other IMO conventions which are ripe for legislation.
I believe that I am offering the Minister a fair deal. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, smiles ruefully. I cannot see anything wrong with that. The
1922
Government say that the legislation is ready but that they have not had time for it. Well, they certainly have time in the next Session of Parliament. This ought not to be done by way of Private Members' Bills. If the Minister says, "Very well. I am not prepared to give that undertaking. I am not prepared to go further than the Minister dealing with the matter in another place did when he said that the matter would be dealt with at the earliest opportunity". I want to be fair to the Minister. It was Mr. Steven Norris, who said:
"I hope that you will allow me to give the hon. Members for Midlothian and for Stoke-on-Trent, North an undertaking that we shall seek an early legislative opportunity to incorporate the terms of the convention".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 31/3/93; col. 91.]
That is not specific enough. We want the Government to be tied down to this matter.
It is important. I am sure that the Minister would not in any way countenance the view that the ILO conventions to which I have referred are unimportant. The Minister in another place has said that it is only because of the lack of legislative time that they have not been brought forward. There it is. If the Minister is not disposed to go that way, then I say categorically that I must do my duty on behalf of the Opposition and ensure that the matter is debated in Committee. If need be I will ensure that the matter is brought forward.
There is no doubt that the Bill is susceptible of amendment. I have been given that assurance in this House by the powers that be who help us to adjudicate on these matters. That being the case, I believe that the Minister should give proper attention to the matter. It is within his right to say that he rejects my proposition entirely and that he is not interested in entering into anything more specific than what Mr. Norris was prepared to say in another place. I am equally entitled to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and that a proper amendment to this effect is given attention to.
If I may say so with respect to Mr. Page, his response to an amendment to that effect—Amendment No. 37 as it was —was somewhat misleading, although I am sure not deliberately. He suggested that the incorporation of the requirement that the amendment in question would have had would diminish standards applying to the British fleet. That is wrong. The amendment would have enabled the registrar to take the issues affecting adherence to the conventions into account before the due legal processes dealing with ratification would have been complete. I cannot see how that would diminish standards. Indeed, I believe that the reverse is the case. But there are other amendments that I would have wished to introduce which I am certainly prepared to forego if the Minister is prepared to recognise that what I am seeking to do is perfectly fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was right in saying that the Bill arose from the joint report of the General Council of British Shipping, as it then was, and the Department of Transport entitled British Shipping: Challenges and Opportunities. It was a valuable document. It would have been even more valuable if the GCBS and the Department of Transport had been prepared to enable the shipping trade unions to enter into those deliberations. They

1923
are important bodies which have always exercised a considerable degree of responsibility. NUMAST would have been more than anxious to make a contribution. There are also bodies representing the fishermen which might have been taken into account. However, I do not want to diminish the importance of the document.
The changes envisaged in the Bill are to be welcomed. I do not want to see the Bill lost. Furthermore, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, introduced a note of proportionality into the debate. It was quite absurd for Mr. Anthony Nelson, representing the Treasury, in speaking on the Finance (No.2) Bill on 12th May, to say that this was a very important Bill which would come before the House of Lords. It is important, but it is not that important. It certainly will not rescue the British fleet from its appalling predicament.
That view was taken very strongly by Mr. Peter Luff, a Conservative Back-Bencher, speaking in the Committee stage on the Bill on 31st March. He said:
"I share the regret of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that the Budget did not do more to assist the British shipping industry … as long as other measures are not forthcoming, the Bill presents the only opportunity that hon. Members have to help the British shipping industry and safeguard employment in that industry. The bareboat chartering in and chartering out provisions are little more than sticking plaster solutions to a fundamental injury that has been suffered by the British merchant fleet".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 31/3/93; col. 84.]
That pretty well sums it up. The British merchant fleet is dying and it needs more than sticking plaster to put it together. While the Bill is to be welcomed, it is no substitute for a coherent shipping policy on the part of the Government which has been singularly lacking over the past 14 years.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on introducing the Bill—which he has already explained was originally introduced in another place by my honourable friend Richard Page, the Member for Hertfordshire, South West—and on arranging for its Second Reading in this House today.
My noble friend is, of course, fully seized of the importance of the Bill to our shipping industry, having himself served as both Minister for Shipping and, more recently, as government spokesman on shipping matters in this House when he was Minister for Aviation. I am sure that your Lordships will see that this in itself is an excellent recommendation for the Bill which he is now taking forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, criticised the Bill for being a Private Member's Bill. That is up to the business managers. The Bill is undoubtedly widely welcomed within the shipping industry, and this is an excellent opportunity to get a useful piece of legislation on to the statute book if the noble Lord will permit it so to do.
The noble Lord also complained about the lack of discussion. It is worth bearing in mind that more time
1924
has already been spent discussing this Bill than some European Community countries spent debating the whole of their Maastricht legislation.
I know also that your Lordships care greatly for matters maritime and especially for the health of our merchant navy, as evidenced by the wide-ranging debate initiated three weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. The House will have been sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not take part in that debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether that was a genuine note of apology or a snide remark, but, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well, I was not able to be here and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, dealt with the matter perfectly well on behalf of the Opposition.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that his noble friend Lord Carmichael did exceedingly well on behalf of the Opposition. I look forward to discussing transport matters with him more often. That does not alter the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was missed.
In that debate, I paid tribute to the contribution that the merchant navy makes both to the economy and to our defence and praised it for being efficient, well-managed and innovative. More importantly, I explained that the Government's goal is to create the framework in which British shipping can continue to develop into the competitive industry that we all recognise is so vital to the nation.
To a large extent, the creation of a symmetrical framework can be achieved only on an international scale. For example, as I have said before, the Government are committed to ensuring that British shipping is able to operate in free and fair competition with foreign vessels by rolling back the state aids and subsidies offered by other countries which serve to distort the competitive balance.
I noted again what the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, with his great experience, said with regard to the open register. I can reassure him that his point was noted originally when he spoke in the important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I noted it again tonight and will discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Similarly, we are also working with our international partners to encourage high operational standards in shipping worldwide with the aim of reducing unfair competition from substandard vessels which, by failing to meet IMO-agreed safety standards, are able to undercut those that do comply. This will reduce the cost differential between flags with high standards, such as our own, and those flags with a less distinguished record in this field.
However, although these are very important aims and although success in increasing competition in the international arena will be of considerable benefit to British shipping, there are certain narrower domestic measures which can and should be taken to help improve the efficient working of our shipping

1925
industry. The Bill which my noble friend Lord Brabazon has introduced today represents one such measure.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that my noble friend has spoken most lucidly about the purpose of the Bill —both what it does and why it is necessary. My noble friend was right to emphasise the straightforward and technical nature of the measure and the fact that the shipping industry itself was partly responsible for recommending the speeding-up and simplification of registration procedures which will be effected by enactment of the measures. I am sure that the House will agree that, where possible, we should respect the needs of the industry in these challenging times.
Again, I can confirm to the House that it is not a question of altering and lowering the safety standards; quite the reverse. My noble friend was right when forecasting that I would wish to repeat that the Government will countenance no dilution of present standards. Indeed, given your Lordships' understandable anxiety about shipping safety, expressed most recently in the debate to which I have referred, I should like to add my assurance to that already given by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. I feel that it is necessary to underline here that the same safety standards will apply to all vessels operating under the UK flag, regardless of whether they are owned by the operator or are used by him under a bareboat charter.
My noble friend conveyed the desirability to both industry and government of introducing flexibility into ship registration requirements. I am sure that your Lordships will also see the value of tidying up and paving the way for consolidation of shipping law dating back over a hundred years.
I shall now turn to the offer that I could not refuse put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He described it as a fair deal. I think others may have a different term for it. I shall certainly not do a deal with the noble Lord over the Floor of the House. That would be totally wrong and contrary to the procedures of this place where such negotiations are undertaken by the business managers.
However, on the subject of the ratification of the salvage convention, the noble Lord is second to me in his keenness to ratify the convention. We are extremely anxious that this and other measures should be ratified. It cannot be dealt with as Private Member's legislation because, as it involves ratification of an international treaty, it can only be submitted as a government Bill. However, I reiterate to the noble Lord the commitment given in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Norris that we shall seek to bring forward legislation to allow ratification of the salvage convention at the earliest possible opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, cannot expect me to pre-empt the Queen's Speech or to go further than that tonight pr on another occasion. I simply reiterate that it is extremely important that we proceed with the ratification of the salvage convention and we shall seek an early opportunity to introduce appropriate legislation.
Returning to the Bill before us now, I hope that all Members of the House will lend their full support to
1926
it. It is a small but important measure. Certainly, those who are involved with the future of British shipping cannot do anything but give it a speedy passage and fair wind.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, his enthusiasm for the Bill as regards bareboat chartering and his evident desire to see the Bill go further than it does. From the flavour of the debate that he has heard, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, he will realise that it would be difficult to include such measures as he proposes—for example, an open register—in a Private Member's Bill. I am certain that, if the Government were to take that course, it would have to be a government Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will endorse that remark.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words about the Bill. He was critical of the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill. That is largely a matter for another place and for my honourable friend who won a place in the ballot and chose this piece of legislation. I can only reiterate that I am pleased to be able to bring it before your Lordships. I can tell the noble Lord, having consulted the Commons Committee Hansard, that the Bill had a total of six-and-a-half hours' debate in Committee, which is not a bad record for a Bill such as this. The noble Lord must concede that it has had a fair airing.
The noble Lord asked my noble friend to make a firm commitment on the ratification of the salvage convention. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with what my noble friend said. I was interested to hear my noble friend say that, because it involved the ratification of an international treaty, we could not include it in a Private Member's Bill. Perhaps that answers a point in any case.
I do not claim nor did I claim in my opening remarks, that the Bill will rescue the British fleet, to use the phrase used, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but I hope that it will go some way to helping the British merchant fleet. For that reason I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
7.39 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 206:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause:
Right to information
(".After subsection (2) of section 104 of the 1985 Act (provision of information about tenancies) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) A local authority which is the landlord under a secure tenancy shall supply the tenant, at least once in every relevant year, with a copy of such information relating to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) (b) and (c) as was last published by it; and in this subsection

1927
'relevant year' means any period of twelve months beginning with an anniversary of the date of such publication." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will serve the very worthwhile purpose of ensuring that local authority secure tenants are regularly kept informed of their rights, particularly of their right to buy. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, can the Minister please tell us who expects to pay for this?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if local authorities are obliged to provide the information, then it is up to them to pay for it. However, we should keep this in perspective. Local authorities contact their tenants regularly (and certainly annually), so it is not very difficult for them to include a notice under this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Right to compensation for improvements]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 144, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert:
("(4) Regulations under this section may provide that—
(a) any compensation payable shall be—

(i) determined by the landlord in such manner and taking into account such matters as may be prescribed; or

(ii) calculated in such manner and taking into account such matters as may be prescribed

and shall not exceed such amount, if any, as may be prescribed; and
(b) the landlord may set off against any compensation payable under this section any sums owed to it by the qualifying person or persons.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes changes to the scheme in Clause 135 under which secure tenants of specified landlords will have a right to receive compensation from their landlord, once their tenancy ends, for certain home improvements which they have made to their homes.
We consider that the amendment will significantly improve the operation of the scheme, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 208:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
Right to information
(". After section 75 of the 1987 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Duty of local authority landlord to provide information about right to buy.
75A.—(1) A landlord which is one of those mentioned in section 61(2) (a) (i) or (ii) shall supply each of its secure tenants at least once every year with information about his right to purchase his house under this Part.
(2) The information supplied under subsection (1) shall be in such form as the landlord considers best suited to explain in simple terms and so far as it considers appropriate the right referred to in that subsection."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has the same effect for Scotland as Amendment No. 206, which was moved so eloquently and at such length by my noble friend, has for
1928
England and Wales. I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, that in Scotland similarly we expect the cost of this to be de minimis. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord care to tell us what costs he expects there to be?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated, very small indeed because, as my noble friend has said, it is expected that such information will be included with other information that is sent out to tenants.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [New rights with respect to such disposals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 117, line 23, at end insert:
(" 'common parts', in relation to a building containing two or more flats, means any parts of the building which the tenants of the flats are entitled under the terms of their tenancies to use in common with each other;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 209, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211.
These amendments are technical and, in particular, clarify the way in which HATs may dispose of flats in blocks subject to secure tenancies where only a part of the block is owned by the HAT. They in no way affect the right of tenants to become tenants of the local authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 210 and 211:
Page 117, line 27, leave out ("each of the flats in which") and insert ("in the case of which each flat which is let on a secure tenancy").
Page 117, line 28, at end insert:
("(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, a building which contains—

(a) one or more flats which are let, or available for letting, on secure tenancies by the housing action trust concerned, and

(b) one or more flats which are not so let or so available, shall be treated as if it were two separate buildings, the one containing the flat or flats mentioned in paragraph (a) above and the other containing the flat or flats mentioned in paragraph (b) above and any common parts.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 114 [Provision of housing welfare services]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 117, line 44, at end insert:
("(4) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers to incur expenditure for purposes not authorised by any other enactment) and accordingly the reference to any other enactment in subsection (1) (a) of that section shall not include a reference to this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 114 would give local housing authorities the power to provide welfare services for their own tenants. It has been welcomed for that. However, as it stands, it might inadvertently have the effect of preventing housing authorities from providing certain services for people in the private sector, perhaps most notably community alarm schemes. In the interests of those

1929
people who rely on such services we are pleased to remove any uncertainty over this. For these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Provision of housing welfare services]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 145, line 39, at end insert:
("(5) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (power to incur expenditure for purposes not otherwise authorised) and accordingly the reference in subsection (1) of that section to any other enactment shall not include a reference to this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to the Scottish provisions parallels the amendment which your Lordships have just made to the English provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 118 [Consultation with respect to management agreements]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 213—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not Amendment No. 213A?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon; I mean Amendment No. 213A.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 119, line 29, at beginning insert:
("( ) Where a local authority propose to invite offers to enter into a management agreement, whether or not as a consequence of any order under Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 (`the 1988 Act'), the authority shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to enable the tenants of the houses to which the proposal relates

(a) to be informed of the following details of the proposal, namely—

(i) the terms of the agreement (including in particular the standards of service to be required under the agreement),

(ii) the criteria on which the authority propose to rely in deciding from whom to invite officers, and

(b) to make known to the authority within a specified period their views as to the proposal; and the authority shall, before making any invitation, consider any representations made to them in accordance with those arrangements.

(A1) Where, in consequence of an invitation by them, a local housing authority receive an offer or offers to enter into a management agreement, the authority shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to enable the tenants of the houses to which any offer relates—

(a) to be informed of following matters, namely—

(i) the identity of each person from whom an offer has been received, and

(ii) such details of each offer as the authority consider appropriate, and

(iii) the criteria on which the authority propose to rely in deciding among the offers, and

(b) to make known to the authority within a specified period their views as to those matters; and the authority shall, before deciding among the offers, consider any representations made to them in accordance with those arrangements.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I appreciated that Amendment No. 213 had been moved and did not want to speak to the Scottish amendments.
A noble Lord: My Lords, why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I shall tell the noble Lord privately afterwards. I recognise that the law of trespass in Scotland is rather different from the law of trespass in England.
In moving Amendment No. 213A, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 213B, which also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Although I should like to speak only briefly, I feel that I must do so because this is a very different amendment from Amendment No. 160B, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel when he spelled out the reasons why tenants in both private and public sectors should be able to choose their managers. Nor do I want this evening—particularly at this late hour —to go into detail again as regards the hesitations and reservations of the local authorities and all the tenants' associations about compulsory competitive tendering. We spelled out some of those arguments at length in Committee and it may be that we shall return to them at a subsequent stage.
Turning to the amendments, what is missing from the Bill as currently drafted is any duty on the local authority to consult tenants during the process of inviting and choosing among managing agents, whether the process of compulsory competitive tendering is voluntary, as in the cases of Brent, Westminster, Wandsworth and Rutland, or is done as an extension of CCT to housing.
Both the Minister in another place and the Minister in this House at Committee stage made much of the point that tenants are involved in the consultation at every stage of the process. This amendment seeks to indicate that there are still considerable areas of concern, which vitally affect tenants, on which at the moment they will not be consulted. If the Minister means what he and his noble friends profess to mean —and I am sure that he does—then I am sure that the noble Lord will want to accept this amendment.
We are proposing, therefore, that we should extend the very welcome words of the Minister about consultation with tenants to the tendering process in rather greater detail so that we turn what would otherwise be empty words into something more realistic and more likely to be delivered. We are suggesting in the amendment that tenants should be involved in the tendering process at two main stages. The first is at the point at which local authorities are inviting contractors to tender. Authorities have fairly wide discretion as to which contractors they may invite to go on to the shortlist, so to speak, subject only to the provision that there must be at least three private contractors over and beyond the DSO. Surely, it would be right for tenants to be consulted on the proposed terms of the management agreement and on the criteria which determine which contractors shall make up the shortlist. Clearly, the criteria or the terms of reference of the management agreement crucially affect tenants' well-being, and the individual

1931
contractors themselves may or may not come with a track record above which the tenants may have concern. They may be foreign companies or companies with no connection with the area. As we know, they may be companies with a record of poor performance elsewhere. Surely the tenants have a right to be involved in drawing up that shortlist.
I turn now to the second point at which we think that tenants might reasonably be involved. Once the tenders are received, the tenants should have the right to be informed of the identity of the contractors—I think that we have already agreed that—and of the criteria to be employed by the selecting committee in determining who is selected. I hope that we have come some way from saying that the criteria should merely focus on who is the cheapest, whatever the quality of service offered. It is important for the tenants (who are going to pay the bill for all of this) that they should know precisely how quality offsets cheapness—in other words, that they can assess inputs versus outputs and not, as happens too often with CCT, be required merely to go for the cheapest on the grounds that anything else is anti-competitive behaviour.
Turning now to the associated amendment, Amendment No. 213B, Clause 118 as drafted means that the local authority need only "consider any representations" made by tenants in choosing the winning contract. The amendment would require local authorities fully to take tenants' views into account. It provides, in other words, that where the majority of tenants are opposed to the chosen contractor, the local authority should not proceed with that management agreement. I would expect such occasions to be fairly rare. The provisions are needed because, although a local authority may believe that the contractor is acceptable—given that it is offsetting quality against cost—at the end of the day the tenants will pay for it, and those to whom the management agreement belongs should be allowed the right to have the final say.
The Minister may say that the amendments are unnecessary as the management agreement is limited and strategic policy and so forth are in the hands of the local authorities, which are directly accessible to tenants. So tenants' existing rights are adequate and there is no need to maintain their right of veto which the Government have sought consistently to abolish but which your Lordships' House retained in the face of the Government's attempts to do so in 1985-86 and which it would be good if it could retain today.
If the Minister were to advance that argument tonight he would be confusing a service agreement with a management agreement. With a management agreement, I agree that there is little problem about tenant control of what is going on because tenants can require a local authority to alter the terms of a service agreement. We are talking about a management agreement rather than a service agreement. A management agreement allows the agent discretion when carrying out the services. Those services, as we explored in Committee, may be highly sensitive. They may include, for example, the collection of rent arrears. The way in which rent arrears are collected
1932
and pursued, especially when there is a suggestion of payment by results, can be sensitive. That is especially so when dealing with single parent families, unemployed families and the like, where welfare and debt counselling may be needed—something which hardheaded capitalist contractors will not necessarily want to provide.
After all, as the Minister accepted in Committee, housing management affects intimately the daily lives of not just the person at work but of all members of the household. Those same tenants—not the Minister, not me and not the local authority—are paying for those services. If the Minister meant what he said when he talked about consulting tenants, then tenants who pay should say. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. Here we have two contrasting amendments. The first amendment would be largely positive in its effects but the second one, I am afraid to say, would be largely negative.
The first amendment increases the number of issues on which tenants must be consulted when an authority is proposing to enter into a management agreement. I am sympathetic to the intentions here. The authority must consult on the criteria upon which it will be relying in deciding from whom to invite tenders, and when it has received the tenders it must consult tenants on the identities of the tenderers, appropriate details of their bids and the criteria upon which the authority proposes to rely when deciding among the offers.
However, the amendment has some drawbacks. I believe that, if an authority is to consult on the criteria which it will use in deciding between tenderers, it should do so in advance, before the tenders are received. That would ensure that the criteria are objective and based upon the best interests of the housing service and are not merely a reaction to the tenders. The amendment also repeats, but does not replace, the requirements which are already in the Bill, which I believe could only cause confusion. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand therefore why we cannot accept the amendment. However, as I have said, we are sympathetic to these proposals in general and it was in order that tenant consultation could be extended to a wide range of questions such as this that we have included the regulation-making power in new Section 27A(1) (a) (iii). I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 213B brings up once again what is perhaps the most misunderstood element of the new Section 27A. That concerns the removal by the Bill of the requirement upon the Secretary of State to withhold his approval of a housing management delegation if it appears to him that a majority of tenants of the area to which the agreement relates do not wish it to proceed. I understand fully the concerns that many have expressed about this proposal, but many of those concerns were expressed before the Bill was published and the Government's proposals for enhanced tenant consultation requirements were made available.
We need to keep in mind the new environment in which housing management agreements are now being

1933
sought. We are now operating in an environment where full tenant consultation should be the norm; in an environment where tenants are increasingly involved and in many cases seeking to manage their homes. Local authorities are constantly looking for new ways to deliver services and looking to the private sector to help them with that. Those developments are all good for housing management and, above all, good for tenants, many of whom are now enjoying the benefits of improved and more cost-effective services.
The Government have always believed that full and effective consultation with tenants should be an integral part of the preparation for management agreements, but those consultation arrangements must be designed to fit the times in which they will be working. Thus the argument in favour of a tenants' veto was introduced at a time when delegations were voluntary and some form of balancing check was required to secure the best interests of tenants and the taxpayer.
Under the new regime, tenants will have rights to consultation on the terms of management agreements, including those resulting from CCT. Local authorities will have to consult tenants, in particular, on the standards of service proposed; that is, the specification for the delegation. The authority has to consider the tenants' representations before it can make any decisions on the terms; that is, before it can invite tenders. That is a much more valuable time to be consulted than provided for in the current legislation. The tenants will also be consulted on the monitoring of the contractor's ongoing performance. That is why we believe that it is right and safe to replace the tenants' veto. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness not to move the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I note the Minister's reply which seemed to suggest that he had sympathy with the first amendment but does not think that it is necessary and objects to the second amendment altogether as being out of temper with the times. As I understand the Minister's reply to the first amendment, he is saying that local authorities consult tenants before they draw up a short list but may not consult them afterwards; that they may consult tenants before they choose the contractor but not afterwards. Why should not we have both? Following the Minister's line of argument, why should we not extend tenants' rights so that at the preliminary stage, when drawing up the specification for the terms of the agreement, they should be consulted and when drawing up the short list against which that is measured they should also be consulted?
The Minister has accepted that tenants are consulted before the local authority goes through to the contractor, but when there is a deemed contractor, that should also be put to council tenants. Will the Minister, with the leave of the House, explain why he is not willing to give those additional rights of consultation to tenants as he has already suggested that he is so much in favour of consulting them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, earlier I was chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for asking him questions at Report stage. I should not want to go against his advice.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if that reply came from anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I would have thought that it was a duck-out or an opt-out because the notes had not come quickly enough from the Box. I am sure that that is not the case.
I move on to the second amendment, noting that the Minister is unable to answer the point, which is that tenants may have some rights of consultation but not others; and the Minister does not understand why they should have some and not others, but refuses, or fails, to respond. We note that for a later stage perhaps. In reply to the second amendment the Minister says that it is no longer necessary or appropriate and the time is not right—I am sorry that the notes have come from the Box so late—for tenants to have the right of veto over the final choice of contractor.
In Part I of the Bill, at point after point, and against the Minister's own Back-Benchers, noble Lords on this side of the House have supported the Government in extending to leaseholders the right to chose who should manage their property, to extend and to enfranchise. That is a full extension of rights. If one is affluent enough to be able to buy, one obtains an extension of rights. If one is not affluent enough to buy but remains as a renting tenant, one does not merely not obtain an extension of rights but one's existing rights—the right of veto to a change of manager —are taken away.
Do noble Lords opposite feel comfortable in extending the rights of those who are financially privileged while taking away virtually identical rights from those not financially privileged, who remain as council tenants, but who nonetheless have to pick up the management bill? That is what the Minister is saying. The whole of the Government's philosophy as set out in the Citizen's Charter has been to position individuals as rights-bearing citizens. That is what the amendment would do. If the Minister rejects it, he is saying that leaseholders have rights, landlords have rights, freeholders have rights, Churches have rights, housing associations have rights, everyone but tenants has rights. And why not? Because they rent; they are not affluent; they are not seeking to buy.
I cannot help feeling that that is part of the Government's continuing vendetta against council tenants. They are not adding to their rights. They are taking away one of the most important rights they currently possess, which is the right to determine who manages their estates. That comes very odd from a government who extend rights in the first part of the Bill but take away exactly those rights in the second part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 213E not moved.]
8 p.m.
Clause 120 [Management agreements with tenant management organisations]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 122, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these technical amendments to Clause 120 make specific provision for local authority participation in tenant management organisations and disapply Section 33 of the Local Government Act 1988 where the right-to-manage procedures of Clause 120 have been followed.
The provisions of Clause 120 underline the Government's firm commitment to encourage and facilitate tenant management in parallel with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. Current tenant management practice evidences a healthy diversity. Many tenant management organisations opt to manage their estates entirely on their own with management boards or committees made up entirely of tenants. However, a minority of existing TMOs have invited council representatives to serve on their boards of management and other developing TMOs wish to do so.
Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 simply make specific provision for the continuance of the practice within the new right-to-manage framework, which Clause 120 will put into place. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 215 to 218:
Page 122, line 37, at end insert ("and
(d) for enabling the authority, if invited to do so by the organisation concerned, to nominate one or more persons to be directors or other officers of any tenant management organisation with whom the authority have entered into, or propose to enter into, a management agreement.").
Page 123, line 13, leave out ("and").
Page 123, line 16, at end insert ("and
(iii) in the case of an organisation which is associated with the authority, the provisions of section 33 of the Local Government Act 1988 (restrictions on contracts with local authority companies).").
Page 123, line 20, at end insert:
("'associated' shall be construed in accordance with section 33 of the Local Government Act 1988;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 124 [Levy on disposals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 129, line 19, leave out ("the levy") and insert ("any levy under this section").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220. These are technical amendments. The first is purely a drafting amendment. The second allows the Secretary of State to recover more easily levy from any authority which does not follow the procedures set out in the disposals levy administration determinations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 129, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) Any amounts by way of levy or interest which are not paid to the Secretary of State as required by the arrangements mentioned in subsection (5) shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 221:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
Defective dwellings: damages for landlord's failure to notify
(". After subsection (3) of section 299 of the 1987 Act (jurisdiction of sheriff) there shall be added the following subsections—
"(4) Where damages are awarded in proceedings commenced before 1st December 1994 which arise out of a failure on the part of the public sector authority to give a person acquiring a relevant interest in a dwelling notice in writing under section 291, the amount of damages for the purposes of this subsection shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the market value of the dwelling assessed as if it were not a defective dwelling and were available for sale on the open market with vacant possession; and

(b) the market value of the dwelling assessed as a defective dwelling and as if available for sale on the open market with vacant possession.

(5) Subsection (4) applies in relation to proceedings which arise out of a failure by the authority before the coming into force of section (Defective dwellings: damages for landlord's failure to notify) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as it does to proceedings which arise out of a failure by the authority after that date." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment introduces a clause which makes a small but significant change to legislation relating to defective houses in Scotland, in particular in relation to the level of damages awarded in actions against a local authority which fails to warn purchasers of a defect in a house. It arises out of a point well made on Report in another place by the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, Mr. Archie Kirkwood.
I shall be happy to expand on the matter but since the Scottish colleagues of the noble Lord opposite are absent I shall not do so unless the House wishes a full explanation. As the House wishes to hear a full explanation I am content to give that.
The housing defects legislation provides assistance to house owners who bought certain types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses from local authorities before it was generally known that they had inherent structural defects. The legislation imposes a statutory duty on the local authorities to assist such purchases but that assistance is restricted to those who bought before 26th April 1984 or, in certain circumstances, in the 12 months thereafter.
From April 1984 local authorities should have been aware of the defects. In that situation they were under a duty under Section 291 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to tell purchasers of any such defect in a house which they were buying. If the local authority failed to do so and the purchaser bought a defective house, the purchaser can sue the local authority for damages for the resulting loss.
Under the legislation as it stands there is however a problem. Noble Lords will recall that under the right-to-buy legislation tenants purchase their houses

1937
at a discount. Taking entirely notional figures a tenant may pay, for example, £10,000 for a house which will sell on the open market for £15,000. It follows therefore that if the purchaser buys a defect-free house for a price of £10,000 he will have a house worth £15,000. However, if the tenant purchaser buys his house for £10,000 but it turns out to be defective it might be worth only £2,000 on the market.
As the law stands, if the purchaser sues the local authority for failing to warn him of the defects he will receive as damages only the difference between the price that he paid —that is £10,000—and the value of the defective house —that is £2,000—which will be a measure of damages of £8,000. The point is that he will receive no compensation for the fact that if the house had not been defective it would have been worth £15,000.
The amendment corrects the position. The purchaser will be entitled to the difference between what would have been the market value of the house without the defects and its actual market value in the defective condition. As regards the example that I gave, with the amendment in place the purchaser will be entitled to the difference between the market value without a defect—that is £15,000—and the market value of the defective house—in the example that I gave it was £2,000—so he will be entitled to £13,000 as opposed to £8,000 to which he is entitled under the existing state of the law.
The purchaser is thus put into the position in which he would have been had he bought a sound house. That is right in principle and the amendment helps to remove what is perceived as a potential injustice. Your Lordships will notice that the provision applies even where a local authority's failure to warn occurred before the Bill comes into force as an Act. To that extent it is retrospective. But, having considered the matter, I believe that in all the circumstances it is a proper amendment to our law.
Your Lordships will also notice that the provision applies only to proceedings begun before 1st December 1994. That limitation was inserted to conform with the general pattern under the existing legislation in which the duty of local authorities to assist purchasers will cease on that date also. It seems correct that this special provision for purchasers—for that is what it is—should stop at the same time. Those affected should be in a position to bring any necessary proceedings by that date. In England and Wales the matter is dealt with satisfactorily in another way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the amendment. The fact that none of my colleagues from Scotland is here does not mean that the Opposition Front Bench is vacant in any way any more than it means that if there is no Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench the Government are vacant. Therefore, I should be grateful if we could deal on that basis.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I apologise for having been absent at the beginning of the explanation of the amendment. Has there been any consultation with CoSLA about the matter and if so what is its
1938
reaction? Experience in England is that dealing with such defects is highly complex, highly emotional and potentially extremely expensive. This is an extraordinarily difficult issue. I speak from experience of an authority in which we inherited housing stock which had been sold but which had considerable defects. Satisfying those who have bought property who feel that they are in a different position from tenants is a real problem, as is the question of paying for it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. There was no consultation but I should explain that the particular problem relates to a relatively small number of houses because, as your Lordships will appreciate, the point arises only where a local authority fails to inform the tenants of defects of which that local authority should have, at that time, been aware. In other words, it is at a stage when the defects were already well known. Therefore, the usual practice would have been for the local authorities to make known those defects to purchasers in accordance with their statutory duty. We are dealing with a small number of cases only, although they are cases in which there is a potential difficulty for the purchaser.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Other amendments of 1987 Act]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 149, line 16, leave out from ("to") to end of line 31 and insert ("any previous discount, or the aggregate of any previous discounts, received by the appropriate person on any previous purchase of a house by any of these persons from a landlord who is a person specified in subsection (11) of section 61 or prescribed in an order made under that subsection, reduced by any amount of such previous discount recovered by such a landlord.";
(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—"(a) the "appropriate person" is whoever of—

(i) the tenant; or

(ii) the tenant's spouse if living with him at the date of service of the application to purchase; or

(iii) a deceased spouse if living with the tenant at the time of death; or

(iv) any joint tenant who is a joint purchaser of the house,

has the longer or longest such occupation;" and

(ii) at the end there shall be inserted—

"and, for the purposes of subsection (3A), the

"appropriate person" is any of the persons mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph (a)." ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to correct a potentially unfair anomaly between the existing right-to-buy provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the new provisions on deduction of previous discount in the Bill. It brings into line the list of persons whose public sector tenancies count for discount purposes and the list of persons whose previous discount is to be deducted. It uses one list, instead of two, for both purposes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [The Agency]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 222ZA:
Page 149, line 43, leave out ("for the purpose of exercising") and insert ("which shall include persons with experience of local authorities and which shall exercise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224. At this point we move on to discuss the Urban Regeneration Agency. Scottish noble Lords opposite will no doubt wish to go home.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a disgraceful slur upon my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who has been extremely helpful throughout the course of the Bill in explaining some complicated legal issues to the House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise. I meant no slur on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who has been assiduous in explaining all kinds of amendments to the House, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. I see that both noble and learned Lords are going home, so I shall address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who remain on the Government Front Bench.
It is rather sad that we are dealing with the URA right at the end of a rather long and complicated Report stage. I believe that on Second Reading I foreshadowed that by saying that this Bill is three Bills in one. I should have preferred the URA to be the object of separate legislation because it is an extremely important issue. It is a pity that we are dealing with it at a late hour on the third day of our considerations on Report.
In moving the amendment I wish to emphasise that it is our view that something more than ministerial assurances are necessary if we are to be satisfied that the URA should, could and must work together with local authorities. We have received assurances that there is nothing to that effect on the face of the Bill. I turn now to Amendment No. 222ZA. We have absolutely no assurances that the members of the agency will have any experience of local authority activity. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, it looks to us as though there will be a chairman who is widely respected for all kinds of reasons—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester—and five other people who will be chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and the Secretary of State and who will probably be Tory businessmen.
That does not satisfy us. We must make sure in some way or other that local authorities are properly represented on the agency. That is the thrust of the two amendments to which I am speaking.
The first amendment is quite simple. It says that the agency:
"shall include persons with experience of local authorities".
That is a very gentle amendment. Amendment No. 224 is slightly fiercer and demands that:
"not less than two shall at the time of their appointment to be an elected member of a local authority in England".
For those of us who value local democracy, it is sad that the Government seem from time to time to be
1940
proud to say that they are prepared to override local democracy and create agencies—quangos as we used to call them and, indeed, we call them that again—which will take development planning powers—which my noble friend Lady Hollis will speak to in a few moments—but whose members have no experience of local authority planning, local needs and what are the procedures and essential characteristics of the environment with which they will have to deal.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will have some second or perhaps third thoughts on the issue because we believe that it is not enough to have ministerial assurances that the URA will work with local authorities. We have those assurances but as the Minister knows full well, ministerial assurances in this House or in another place are not worth anything when it comes to the courts. When it comes to the courts, what matters is what is on the face of the Bill. Therefore, it seems to us important that these provisions should be written on the face of the Bill because we distrust—and I say this with due consideration of my words—the attitude of the present Government towards local authorities. If the URA is to work at all, we believe that it should work in the concept of City Challenge, in the sense of being with local authorities rather than being able to override them. A condition of that would be that members of the agency should be at least in part representative of the local authority interest. In that spirit, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I cannot let the moment pass without putting on record, as I am sure your Lordships will expect me to, my wholehearted support for both the amendments. We heard a great deal about partnership during the last stage of the Bill. That partnership can only be a partnership when those involved recognise one another as equals. The amendment is necessary because of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which I share—and it is a concern based on the evidence of the past few years—that central government, unhappily, does not regard local government either as its equal or, in any genuine sense of the word, as its partner.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment and also to the noble Baroness for lending her support. I should like to start by saying a little about the relationship that the agency will develop with local authorities. It is a matter of some puzzlement to me that I have to spell that out. At every stage of the Bill Ministers have made clear that the agency will work in close partnership with local authorities. But at times noble Lords opposite seem to have chosen not to hear. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that it was not worth anything and that he distrusted the Government's intention.
Our original consultation paper last July said that the agency would:
"Work closely with local authorities, the voluntary sector and other bodies involved in urban renewal".
My honourable friend the Minister of State for Inner Cities said in another place:

1941
"The URA will work in conjunction with local authorities and, in most cases, will work in agreement with them because that will make the URA's job easier".
Further, the Bill itself at Clause 146 gives the agency the power to,
"act with other persons, whether in partnership or otherwise".
On Second Reading I made more references to co-operation and a spirit of partnership than the rest of the House put together. In Committee I made clear that the agency will work closely with local authorities. I do so again today. I assure the House that the Secretary of State's guidance to the agency will say that it should develop particularly close links with local authorities, always operating within the planning framework and involving local people as much as possible.
If that is not enough for the noble Lord, then I am sorry. I read his first amendment, Amendment No. 222ZA, with some interest. I wonder whether those persons with experience of local authorities would include my noble friend Lord Walker, who sometime ago was Secretary of State for the Department of Environment and, therefore, has a great deal of experience with local authorities.
It is important not to be too prescriptive. We do not believe in quotas. The agency will need to draw on a wide range of skills, including surveyors, architects, developers, financiers, industrialists, environmentalists and those with experience of the voluntary sector. Rigid rules about the composition of the board could make it impossible to bring together the right mix of skills by making it large and unwieldy.
We will not succumb to tokenism of any kind. We intend to pick board members for what they can offer, not for whom they represent. The amendments place more emphasis on the background of a board member than on the contribution that he or she can make. That is not the way to achieve an active, imaginative board. I hope that noble Lords opposite will come with the Government on that and agree with us.
I hope that what I have said about the relationship between the agency and local authorities will persuade the noble Lord that the amendments are unnecessary and that they should, therefore, be withdrawn. It is a matter of some sadness to me that noble Lords opposite should wish to put so much faith in local authorities all the time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most disappointed with the Minister's response. It was not very long ago that, in response to my noble friend Lady Hollis, he said:
"This agency is a partnership. It is about working with local authorities, the private sector, voluntary organisations"—
I should point out to the House that I am actually quoting the Minister's words; indeed, he went on to say—
"and anyone else who cares to have an interest in the land in question".—[Official Report, 19/4/93; col. 1277.]
Can the Minister really be surprised that we are distrustful? Whatever his boss says and whatever he or the noble Lord, Lord Walker, (who introduced the 1974 Act which we are all now trying to undo) says, we feel that there should be proper representation of local authorities on the agency. They must work in
1942
partnership. It should not simply be people who are picked by the Secretary of State; in other words, just jobs for the boys. That is what will happen unless the Government accept the amendment. If, as I understand from the Minister, the Government do not propose to accept it, I shall have to take the opinion of the House.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 222ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 47.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blease, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hamwee, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Moyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Norric, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cranborne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffhani Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

HoImPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 149, line 44, after ("functions") insert ("(not being functions of a planning authority)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, continuing to fight the good fight on behalf of local authorities, we turn to the amendments dealing with planning powers, and in particular the power on the part of the Secretary of State to make a designation order entitling the Urban Regeneration Agency to exercise planning powers.
I said a moment ago that there had been a great deal of discussion at all stages of this Bill about partnership between those who are concerned with the different functions of regeneration. At the previous stage of the Bill we talked a good deal about what regeneration involves. It involves not just land but the

1943
use of all resources, in particular human resources. The powers we are discussing are precisely directed at land.
The Minister has explained that normally the agency would have no planning powers. In a discussion on this subject—I think it was in response to an amendment of mine—the Minister said:
"There may be cases, however, where the more direct involvement of the agency—on the lines of an urban development corporation—is appropriate … In extreme circumstances co-operation—"
by that I think he was referring to co-operation on the part of the local authority—
"may not be forthcoming… but we have a duty to guard against the possibility".
By "we" the Minister meant the Government. The Minister objected to the amendment he was discussing as he believed it would mean that a local authority could veto designation, no matter how badly it was needed. He continued:
"A short-sighted local authority should not be able to deprive local communities of the agency's help".—[Official Report, 19/4/93; col. 1346.]
One can in some cases draw an analogy between urban development corporations and the Urban Regeneration Agency. Too many urban development corporations do not carry the confidence of residents in their areas. On the previous occasion when we debated this matter, noble Lords mentioned the London Docklands Development Corporation. I must accept that there were references to successful urban development corporations but, by and large, in those cases a large number of their members were also members of the corresponding local authorities.
I accept that the designation orders are a long stop to achieve what the Government want over the head of local authorities more or less by definition. The Urban Regeneration Agency is not democratically accountable. As I have said before, the agency has a huge democratic deficit in terms of exercising planning powers. I do not believe the provisions in the Bill are necessary. The Secretary of State has the power to call in applications if there is concern in Whitehall, Marsham Street or in this building that a local authority may not have dealt appropriately with a particular planning application.
If the Urban Regeneration Agency's designation powers are to be used as a fast track to achieving planning decisions against the wishes of the local planning authority—the latter authority is part of a local authority and is accountable to and in close touch with its electors—on the basis that the end, which is regeneration, justifies the means of achieving it, I believe such means must call into doubt the end. I do not believe that regeneration that is achieved through the use of such powers, over the head of the local community, is valid.
I realise I am painting an extreme picture but, in the circumstances I have described, it is hollow to refer to partnership. Local communities must be at the heart of regeneration; otherwise it will not be true regeneration. I should put it on the record that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 233B to 233E. All
1944
these amendments deal with planning powers. I believe the broad point I have made covers them all. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish to support Amendment No. 222A and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 233B to 233E, which have been so persuasively spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
In Committee this amendment was explored and it was then emphasised that over the years there had been a succession of urban initiatives which had achieved varying degrees of success. Some of those initiatives have been mentioned by the noble Baroness tonight. They range from urban programmes to UDCs, task forces, enterprise zones, estate action schemes and City Challenge. Several themes recur through the initiatives. Those themes have been bedded down in some of the latest UDCs and initiatives. The first of them is that regeneration works only if it is initiated in response to, and is responsive to, local need. That means partnership—with the local authority, local groups and other statutory agencies.
If the regeneration agency, whether it be a UDC or a task force, resists that partnership, if it is top down, if it parachutes in and then deserts, its activities and initiatives will almost certainly collapse with its withdrawal and the exercise will remain in the long term a costly and irrelevant failure. Those initiatives succeed only when they are firmly rooted. Otherwise they are dependent on the artifice of the agency that is created. If they are not so rooted they will not survive. They will only be rooted if they have the active support and partnership of the local community. That is the key lesson which we should, on all sides of the House, have learnt in respect of urban initiatives over the past 20 years. Otherwise, one is wasting one's time and wasting one's money.
I turn to the new initiative of the urban regeneration agency. Opposition Members have consistently pressed two amendments, at Committee stage and now again on Report. The first was that moved recently by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendment proposed that the membership of the urban regeneration agency should include a substantial local authority voice. That would not constitute a majority, but there should be a substantial local presence. The second was the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, providing that the URA should not be able to exclude itself from local planning by virtue of a designation order. Those amendments are linked by precisely that question of partnership.
At Committee stage the Minister made much of partnership. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel quoted the Minister's phrase that the essence of the URA is partnership. The Minister then proceeds to reject all the amendments that would ensure it. It remains words on a page rather than action embodied in an agency.
Indeed, in response to the previous amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the Minister said (I paraphrase because I cannot remember his exact words and I hope that I do him no injustice) how sad it was that we on this side of the

1945
House should always be speaking up for local government and pressing its claims and that we should feel it necessary to speak on its behalf. He used words to that effect against us while talking about the need for partnership with local authorities. How does he combine those two? How can he, on the one hand, talk of partnership and then, when we remind him that partnership involves co-operation between two partners, feel that it is sad that we should need to remind him of that. The evidence is all around us in the fact that the Minister rejects our amendments.
One can achieve partnership in one of two ways. One can achieve it by co-ordinating a membership of experience on an urban regeneration agency. The Minister made much of the fact that he wants active and energetic people on the URA and not people who are selected on the basis of what they have done in the past. The point about local authority membership is precisely the experience on which those members can draw and the local connectedness to which they can refer which might make the objectives of the URA deliverable. If one does it that way, as with the new UDC in Plymouth, one ensures that the possible conflict of objectives is worked out within the URA because of the nature of membership.
Alternatively, if one rejects that approach, as the Minister has just done, then one has to do it the other way. If one does not achieve co-operation through membership one has to achieve co-operation through planning. That is the objective of our second set of amendments under which decisions made by the URA must remain harmonious with local needs as assessed by democratically elected local people.
If the Government have rejected the first option relating to the membership of the URA, it is even more important that they do not reject the second option of not allowing the URA to opt out of the planning system at planning control level. We believe that designation—the right to become one's own local planning authority—is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, neither desirable nor necessary. It is not necessary. The Scottish and Welsh development agencies, which are highly regarded and do not possess such powers, have shown that they are not essential.
If the URA should be at odds with the local authority in ways which cannot be resolved by discussion, then it has, as the noble Baroness said, the right to petition the Secretary of State to call in the plans and, above all, the right of appeal, as all major developers have. No doubt it also has access to a fast track. After all, it will be appealing to the person who appointed it—the Secretary of State. There would normally be a presumption in its favour by the Secretary of State in handling any such appeal, particularly if based on proper grounds.
That brings me to our second concern, namely that proper grounds are of the essence. The planning system ensures that decisions are made on proper public grounds. They are based on plans which have gone out for local consultation, have been formerly approved by the Secretary of State, are consistent with county structure plans and regional planning guidance and which, if there is a new major development, have
1946
been aired at a public inquiry. In other words, that is a form of planning which not only comes up from local people but is determined and scrutinised in public in a transparent manner.
The URA, as set up by the Government, will be top down. It will parachute into local communities and will inevitably be regarded by local people with some degree of suspicion, and rightly so. How much more important, therefore, that that suspicion should be allayed by the URA being seen to be operating in partnership with the local community by falling fully within the framework of local planning decisions which have been democratically arrived at and publicly approved.
At Committee stage we pressed the Minister to say when designation might occur. The Minister cheerfully said that he thought that local authorities were obstructive, unhelpful and unco-operative. We need occasionally to remind the Minister that it is part of the job of planning authorities to be obstructive and to obstruct those proposals which need to be obstructed in the public interest. Any developer refused permission by the local authority to build a large housing estate in the green belt could rightly accuse the local authority of being obstructive. But does anyone suggest that it should not be?
The Minister will no doubt say, and rightly, that the URA will conform with the local development plan. But the URA proposals we teased out at Committee stage can nonetheless have major implications for roads and traffic, housing, open space, densities, trees, and the like. URAs giving themselves planning permission, which is what this will mean, would essentially drive coaches and horses through local development plans.
If there is dispute—and dispute within the planning context may be healthy rather than destructive—then it should be resolved by open debate; in other words, by appeal, and not by one party—the URA—having the privilege of designation and therefore the right to opt out of planning control by becoming its own local planning authority. That is wrong and makes a mockery of the Government's own measure of 18 months ago, the Planning and Compensation Act. To that extent I fully support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords opposite have assumed that the provisions in Clauses 156 and 157 will only be used against the wishes of local authorities. However, as I explained in Committee, and as the noble Baroness reminded us, they may well be used to cement a partnership between the agency and one or more local authorities. That might be because they want the agency to take over responsibility for a particularly difficult site which would benefit from its special skills.
In other cases, a local authority with a severely derelict site close to its boundary may be unable to reach agreement with a neighbouring authority on access and servicing. The agency can help in such cases by seeking designation of the area in order to help the

1947
authority to develop the site properly. The noble Baroness offered no answer to those situations, which were raised in Committee, as she rightly pointed out.
The examples of the Birmingham and Plymouth UDCs, which I quoted in Committee, are relevant. The power to set up a UDC is very similar to the power to designate an area where the URA would have development control powers. Why should local authorities in future not have the opportunity to seek help from the URA through designation in the same way as Birmingham and Plymouth have sought a UDC?
The amendments cast aside a carefully structured system, leaving nothing in its place to allow the agency to take over responsibility for development control on severely derelict sites in urgent need of its help. They amend the basic constitution of the agency to prevent it taking on any of the functions of a planning authority. They delete altogether the designation provisions in Clauses 156 and 157.
Amendments Nos. 233D and 233E recognise the value of the highway powers that can be made available within designated areas and try to preserve them within areas specially designated by the Secretary of State. But those powers would lose much of their purpose if removed from the context of designation.
Designation is not only an important guarantee that the agency will be able to act on sites which would otherwise have remained derelict. It is also a mechanism for promoting co-operation and for building on the new spirit of partnership which I mentioned at length in Committee and which we have discussed again today.
It is no good noble Lords opposite getting into a lather about local authorities. We both seek to support local authorities. The difference is that noble Lords opposite insist that local authorities must play a part, whereas we accept that in virtually all circumstances they will play a part where that is appropriate. The amendments remove the carefully structured mechanism altogether. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am unpersuaded by the Minister. He states that the powers will allow the Urban Regeneration Agency to take over responsibility for a difficult site, or to deal with the problem where the site is on a local authority boundary. But are not those just the problems which our current planning system is designed to deal with? The Minister states that we should learn from Birmingham and Plymouth UDCs. As I understand it, those UDCs have large numbers of local authority members, with local authority members as vice-chairmen.
There is an enormous amount of ground between us. The Minister states that there is not. It is difficult to know what more to say because there is so much ground between us. Perhaps I should accept that for today the argument is put on the back burner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 149, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) The Agency shall exercise its functions in accordance with Schedule (Public information and co-operation with local authorities, etc.) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel may be tired of the arguments on local authorities, but I rise to address the same theme again. It is the democratic deficit in the Bill.
I cannot understand how the Minister can constantly say that he is in favour of consultation and yet is unwilling to provide for it on the face of the Bill. He also makes great play of the fact that he has promised that there will be consultation and that we should believe his word and trust him. But he must know that he will not necessarily be in post in one, two, or five years, and however much we may be willing to believe him, and know that he is an honest fellow, his words will only appear in Hansard. People will not, in a year's time, refer to Hansard to see what he said, even if he is still in post. Therefore, the fact that we may believe him does not mean that anyone will abide by his suggestion that consultations will occur with local authorities.
The Minister appears to be in favour of consultation with tenants and local authorities. I cannot understand why that should not appear on the face of the Bill. The provision need not be in the form that we suggest, but surely there is no harm in providing that the Urban Regeneration Agency shall consult local authorities.
I turn specifically to Amendments Nos. 223 and 225. Amendment No. 223 paves the way for the schedule that we suggest should provide for various consultations. There are three main thrusts to the schedule. Paragraphs 1 to 3 ensure that the Urban Regeneration Agency consults local authorities and other public bodies in order to take into account the needs of local communities. It is local people who know the needs of their local community and not some urban regeneration agency which will, of necessity, be remote and have other knowledge, experience and objectives.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 ensure that the Secretary of State consults local authorities and other concerned persons. That surely would lead to better coordination, coherence and a strategic approach to regeneration of an area. Without that, one will have dislocation and people pulling against each other, being at odds and pursuing different objectives.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 ensure that the agency informs the local community both of its past actions over the past year and its future intended activities. That again is surely basic to acceptability within a community or an organisation. Let us consider the business managers about whom the Government are so keen. I have considerable experience of management and of seeking to have plans accepted. Unless people know what one plans to do, one does not have plans accepted; people will not carry them out; one does not

1949
carry people with one and they are not energised. I cannot understand why the Minister opposes the simple concepts which will make the Urban Regeneration Agency work so much more efficiently and effectively.
We have referred to other places such as the London Docklands. That is surely an example where imposed solutions did not work. The local community was extremely bitter and resentful of what was done to them. Past exhortations that the agency should consult the local authority are not sufficient. The provision needs to be on the face of the Bill. I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain why consultation is not deemed sufficiently important in relation to the Urban Regeneration Agency for the provision to be on the face of the Bill. It need not be in the form that we suggest, but surely it should be laid down somewhere in the Bill that the Urban Regeneration Agency should at the very least consult local authorities, even if the provision is in those broad terms.
Amendment No. 226 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 223 and 225. It is a further attempt to introduce some sense of democracy, accountability and openness into the Urban Regeneration Agency. When the Secretary of State extends, restricts, or varies the powers of the Urban Regeneration Agency it requires the Secretary of State at least to cause a statutory instrument to be laid before both Houses of Parliament so that it can be subject to amendment if he has exercised his powers either arbitrarily or excessively. That procedure does not take up time. Normally most such instruments pass without objection. But it is a safeguard to the democratic process, so that people may object if the Urban Regeneration Agency is allowed to take to itself further draconian powers. The amendment is a small attempt to restrain the power of the Executive and to subject it to parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so eloquently. I understand the intention, but I have to tell the noble Baroness that I cannot support her new schedule. It does not strike the right balance between the need to inform and the need for action. It would prevent the agency from taking any action, however trivial, without first engaging in formal consultation.
I grant that consultation, formal or informal, is appropriate in some cases, but this provision goes too far.
The new schedule also requires the Secretary of State to consult on and publish any guidance issued to the agency. Let me say first of all that we must keep the status of the guidance in perspective. The agency's statutory objectives are clearly set out in the Bill. It is being set up as a statutory body accountable to the Secretary of State and through him to Parliament to achieve those objectives. The power for the Secretary of State to give guidance to which the agency must have regard is necessary to ensure that he can be properly accountable to Parliament for its policy. But the guidance must be consistent with the objects that Parliament has agreed.
1950
I explained in Committee that this guidance will not be a single document. It will be subject to revision and will need to be supplemented from time to time, often because urgent decisions are required. Some will be subject to commercial confidentiality. It would not be appropriate to launch a formal consultation exercise on all working documents of this kind.
Amendment No. 226 would require any directions issued by the Secretary of State to be made by regulation. I hope that this power will never be used but it is an important reserve power which ensures that the agency is fully accountable to the Secretary of State at all times. He is in turn accountable to Parliament for the actions of the agency and for the manner in which it spends the public resources devoted to it. It is part of the existing system of accountability and does not need to be picked out for separate parliamentary scrutiny, as this amendment attempts.
A power to give directions on a case-by-case basis is fundamentally incompatible with a requirement that directions be contained in a statutory instrument subject to parliamentary procedure. That, I suggest, is why I have been unable to find any precedents for what is proposed in the amendment.
I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness that we have the matter well in hand and that she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am of course disappointed by the Minister's response. I had hoped to see a smidgen of movement on the Government's side, but we are banging against a brick wall tonight. Although his claim for accountability of Ministers is far too broad and we know that it is often difficult to lay accountability at people's doors, we have already explored that theme at some length this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 16 [Constitution of the Agency]: [Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Schedule 17 [Finances of the Agency]:
9 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 235, line 15, at end insert:
("Financial limits
6A.—(l) The aggregate amount at any time of borrowed sums shall not exceed £200 million or such greater sum not exceeding £300 million as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "borrowed sums" means sums borrowed by the Agency under paragraph 4 minus repayments made or treated as made in respect of those sums.
(3) No order shall be made under sub-paragraph (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the URA's borrowing limits. Schedule 17 includes a power for the agency to borrow, although the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury is required in every case. I appreciate that, like any private sector developer, the agency may sometimes need to borrow to meet urgent needs or to cover

1951
short-term gaps in its cash flow. I understand that Schedule 17 gives the Secretary of State control over such borrowing. However, I find it strange that the Bill does not place a ceiling on the agency's ability to borrow in this way. There are many precedents for such a borrowing limit in other legislation. The case for a limit is that Parliament should approve the total amount of liabilities that the agency enters into at the taxpayers' expense. It needs to approve grant in aid through the normal estimates procedure, but at present the Bill does not require Parliament to approve or even to be aware of any borrowing limit.
My amendment, which introduces a limit of £200 million extensible to £300 million by order of another place, is based upon the urban development corporation model. It is unexceptional and well precedented and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. He is right to point out that there is no overall control on the totality of URA borrowing. The concept of such an overall limit is precedented in other similar legislation relating to urban development corporations.
I do not wish to give the House any less control over the agency than over these similar bodies. I congratulate my noble friend for spotting this omission and I am therefore pleased to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Clause 153 [Guidance and directions by Secretary of State]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 156, line 44, at end insert:
("(1A) The guidance given by the Secretary of State to the Agency under subsection (1) above shall be issued in draft for public consultation and shall include the following matters—

(a) the Agency's primary environmental duty and its contribution to the achievement of environmentally sustainable development;

(b) the need for the Agency to undertake an assessment of the environmental impact of its activities and to consult the public when setting its priorities;

(c) the need for the Agency to have regard to and complement the objectives of local authority development plans and the land use planning policies issued by the Secretary of State, including when considering the end-use of a reclamation site;

(d) targets for the reclamation of derelict land and guidance on the preparation of inventories of such land in conjunction with local authorities;

(e) the role of the Agency in assisting local authorities meet the requirement under sections 12, 31 and 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to include policies on the improvement of the physical environment in development plans;

(f) the need for environmental criteria to be applied to any activities funded by the Agency;

and any other matter which the Secretary of State thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although Amendment No. 225A is a probing amendment, I wanted to give the House an opportunity to discuss the guidance which will be issued by the Secretary of
1952
State to the URA, because it became clear during the Committee stages of the Bill that the Government's guidance will be crucial to the agency's success. At the moment, we know very little about its content or even its timetable. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten us a little this evening about the Government's intentions.
My amendment raises a number of important issues. First, it suggests that the Government's guidance should be issued in draft for public consultation. My noble friend indicated to me by letter only yesterday that the Government intend to issue some of the guidance in draft, but that they do not intend to undertake widespread consultation. However, I hope that in the course of time my noble friend will reconsider that decision. I believe that the guidance should be treated in the same way as the Government's planning guidance to local authorities and that the views of interested parties should be actively sought. For example, last year, the Government issued draft planning guidance for public consultation and amended the final guidance to include the objective of environmentally sustainable development for the planning system.
Speaking of that, my amendment stresses an approach to regeneration which seeks to achieve environmentally sustainable development. That would be consistent with the Government's stated objectives following the Earth Summit at Rio last year.
That approach may not necessarily be the quickest or the most economically attractive. It will require a long-term approach, assisted by strategic environmental assessment and, indeed, the greening of some derelict areas instead of their development with offices or houses. It will also require a close working relationship with local authorities over their development plans.
I am a little concerned that the agency will adopt too crude a measure of success. It should not just concern itself with the rate of derelict land reclamation, because that would ignore the importance of securing the most appropriate end use for sites. For example, the development of offices would have a very different impact from the development of a wildlife park. It would also ignore the important contribution of reclamation in achieving wider land use and planning objectives, such as the reduction of house building on greenfield sites.
Finally, I am keen for the agency to work towards targets set by the Secretary of State. Those would provide a useful focus for its work. Noble Lords may remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill, I drew attention to the fact that we are creating derelict land almost as quickly as we are reclaiming it. As a suggestion, therefore, we could set two targets for the end of the decade. One would be to reduce the overall area of derelict land and the other would be to reclaim derelict land at twice the rate at which it is formed.
Those are all important matters and they relate to the practical way in which the agency will operate. I

1953
look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords and also my noble friend's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I support the probing amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and I hope that the Government will issue guidance in the near future. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the timetable will be for it.
It is essential that the Urban Regeneration Agency works within a long-term strategic framework of environmental concerns, otherwise it could be driven by short-term and developmental, financial or commercial needs. It may ignore the wider aspects of the environment which will inevitably be with a locality for far longer. If the objectives which it pursues are too short-term, it may build up further dereliction for the not-too-distant future.
It is therefore essential that all development takes place within a strategy, a long-term concern in which environmental sustainability is one of the primary aspects of what the agency sets out to do.
We had a long discussion last time about the guidance that the Secretary of State might give the agency. In view of this evening's discussion, perhaps it may be possible that the guidance could include something about consultation with local authorities. Even if it is not on the face of the Bill, it might, if it were at least in the guidance, provide an enduring reference point for those concerned with the activities of the Urban Regeneration Agency. I do not think, despite the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that I have anything further to say to his detailed introduction of the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie is quite right when he says that we are returning to matters that are very important. I hope that my noble friend agrees that the undertakings I have given here today already satisfy the main purposes of the amendment. I do not, however, agree with its attempt to rewrite some of the contents of the guidance and statute.
Several of the points mentioned in the amendment will be key features of the core guidance. It will, for instance, stress the importance of carrying out environmental assessments of major projects. The guidance will also require the agency to develop particularly close links with local authorities, always operating within the planning framework and involving local people as much as possible.
I can tell noble Lords that we propose to make a draft of the central core of our guidance available in a single document. It will cover the whole range of the agency's work without being prescriptive. It will leave the agency free to establish its own priorities within its statutory objectives and the strategic goal set by the Secretary of State. Performance against targets will be measured by a clear set of performance indicators. Beyond that there will be three key themes running through the core guidance.
First, it will repeat the assurances given in this House and in another place that the agency will be required to operate whenever possible through partnerships and to develop particularly close links
1954
with the local authorities. I hope that that is the "smidgen" that the noble Baroness opposite was looking for. Secondly, the guidance will specify that the agency must always operate within the planning framework and should involve local people as much as possible in its activities. Finally, it should always be aware of the environmental implications of its activities and should carry out environmental assessments of major projects. The core guidance would be published in draft before the agency is established. At that stage comments will be welcomed. On that basis, I hope that that gives my noble friend most of what he seeks and that therefore he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could be expand a little on the timetable for the core guidance? He said that it would be published before the agency was set up (as I understand it) and that he would welcome comments on it, or welcome a debate on it. Is he implying that it will come before this House in some form or other for debate?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I would certainly not want to give the impression that the Government expected to have another debate in this House on the guidance or the framework of the agency. Of course, if the noble Lord wants to use his own party's time to have a debate, then he will be able to do that. I wanted to make sure that there would be a public debate (in terms of the consultation) and people would be able to write in with their thoughts and ideas on the consultation process.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again before the noble Lord sits down, could I remind him that my party has no time? The House of Lords has time. He has gone into great detail about the core guidance. Could he perhaps, while waiting for information, tell the House whether the information that he has given us will be published in some form—perhaps as an outline memorandum—in time for Third Reading?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since we shall debate Third Reading on Tuesday—and I speak with the leave of the House—I think it would be virtually impossible for me to provide that necessary guidance before then. The point. is that we intend to establish the new agency before the end of the year, and of course we shall publish the guidance well before then.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. It is good to hear that there will be an opportunity to comment on some of the core guidance, which I hope will be widely circulated. I am also sure that there will be a number of other issues which will be flagged up, perhaps by local authorities and environmental groups. At that stage I hope that my noble friend will consider them very carefully. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
Schedule 19 [The Agency: land]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 227:

1955
Page 241, line 31, leave out ("notwithstanding") and insert ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 227 and 228, which amend Schedule 19 —which is in some ways one of the most disturbing aspects of this part of the Bill—would attempt to make the Urban Regeneration Agency subject to other relevant legislation in addition to the laws relating to planning when acquiring common land, open spaces or fuel or field garden allotments. It would also allow actions against the Urban Regeneration Agency if it was in breach of other legislation relating to such common land and so on.
It is important to build those additional safeguards into the Bill because many of those areas are subject to ancient laws, rights and regulations which are not covered by current planning regulations. Therefore it is important to restrain to some extent the powers of the Urban Regeneration Agency.
Common land is a public amenity that has been progressively eroded in this country since the land enclosure Acts from the 17th century onwards. Curiously enough, the Urban Regeneration Agency would appear to be a kind of mirror image of the private landlords who enclosed the land and deprived the people of their common rights. It is a mirror image in the sense that it is a public body rather than a private landlord. Nowadays we deplore many of the actions of those landlords and what they did when enclosing common land. It is sad to think that the Urban Regeneration Agency might fall into a similar degree of public displeasure through its actions. These amendments attempt to some extent to restrain what it can do in relation to very precious open parts of city landscapes.
Urban commons and open spaces are of great value to people who live in cities for recreation, exercise, aesthetic pleasure, urban farms and as green lungs which reduce air pollution. It is therefore extremely important that some restraints are placed on the Urban Regeneration Agency to prevent it from developing them. It can often be very tempting and much easier to develop such unbuilt-on and derelict sites. Easy commercial advantage and short term gains can be made rather than the Urban Regeneration Agency tackling areas of serious dereliction and decay in our city centres. This amendment is therefore intended as some slight brake on the possible activities of the Urban Regeneration Agency. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with much of what the noble Baroness said. But, as I explained in Committee, the provisions of this Bill enabling the agency to acquire and work on commons, open spaces and fuel and field garden allotments, which in the interests of brevity I shall refer to as "special category land", are well precedented. Similar provisions apply also to local authorities, statutory undertakers, new towns, UDCs and HATs. I would expect the URA to undertake major work on special category land very rarely. But such land cannot be
1956
excluded completely. First of all, it may be derelict or contaminated and work may need to be done on it. Secondly, the agency may need on occasion to acquire such land in order, for example, to provide access to other sites. The crossing of a roadside verge which has been registered as common land is an example.
If the agency acquires special category land by compulsory purchase it would have to provide equally advantageous land in exchange, unless the areas involved were very small. The CPO would transfer all of the trusts, rights and incidents of the original land to the piece offered in exchange.
The provisions of Clause 148 and Schedule 19 are closely linked, and I think it would be clearest if I discuss them together. Clause 148(1) enables the agency to acquire land, including special category land, by compulsory purchase if need be. If it were to purchase such land compulsorily then Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 would apply. Subject to limited exceptions relating to road widening or drainage, or to very small areas, and unless the CPO were to go through special parliamentary procedure, the agency would have to provide land in exchange. Exchange land should be not less in area and is equally advantageous to both the public and to those with rights over the land to be acquired. So Clause 148(3) ensures that the agency has the power to acquire land for exchange. The compulsory purchase order would transfer the original rights and incidents to the exchange land, leaving the land acquired for the purposes of the agency free from those restrictions.
Having said that, I hope that I have made clear the need for the provisions in paragraph 7 in Schedule 19. There is nothing new or exceptional about them. I can understand very clearly the concerns of the noble Baroness. I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful for the sympathetic response from the Minister. He says at least that he understands some of my concerns. Obviously he feels that there are sufficient safeguards built into the Bill. I feel that there are insufficient safeguards in it. We shall not agree about that. In the circumstances I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 228A:
Page 242, line 7, at end insert:
("(1A) An order made under this paragraph shall contain a plan on a scale of not less than 1:10,000 showing the right of way to be extinguished and any right of way to be created.
(1B) The Secretary of State shall not make an order made under this paragraph extinguishing a right of way unless he is satisfied that a reasonably convenient alternative public right of way is available, or will be provided before the right of way is extinguished; and the Secretary of State shall have power to include in the order such provision as he considers necessary for the creation by the Agency of such an alternative public right of way.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 228A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 229A-229E and 233A, with which are grouped Amendments Nos. 229 and 230–233.
Despite its name, the Urban Regeneration Agency may own and work on land anywhere; it is not

1957
confined to urban areas. I have had my attention drawn to a number of points and have been asked to put forward the amendments by the Ramblers' Association. I know that the Minister shares my interest in walking—we walked about 2.5 yards together down the Thames path in January when we launched the London Walking Forum. I hope therefore that the amendments may find sympathy with him.
The Ramblers' Association is concerned to see that people living in urban areas have easy access to enjoyable walks and, of course, urban paths often have a functional purpose in allowing for short cuts avoiding traffic noise and traffic fumes.
The powers contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 19 are essentially the same as the powers applying in new towns, areas of UDCs and housing action trusts. I am told by the Ramblers' Association that its experience of the provision arises principally from the use of the powers in new towns, which it has found to be unsatisfactory and unfair to users of rights of way for two reasons. First, the provisions do not lay down any tests requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the extinguishment is necessary to enable the applicant body to carry out its functions; all that is required is that the land over which the right of way runs is being held by that body. That gives members of the public little scope for arguing the merits of the case for retaining the right of way and no opportunity at all of challenging the Secretary of State's decision in the courts.
Secondly, the power is a power to extinguish only. There is no scope within the provisions for the Secretary of State to order that new rights of way be created as replacements for those which are extinguished. I understand that attempts by the Ramblers' Association to seek replacement paths have not been successful. The Secretary of State has not been willing to place an applicant body under an obligation to dedicate new rights of way at all or by any given date even when there has been a promise of replacement. It may often be the case that the land concerned is sold off to a third party and the promised replacement access cannot be provided.
Amendment No. 228A seeks, first, to require an order to be in a form prescribed by regulations and to contain a plan showing the affected rights of way. In the Bill the form of the order is left to the Secretary of State's discretion and there is no requirement for a plan to be included. The second change sought by the amendment is to impose on the Secretary of State a requirement to be satisfied that there will still be a reasonably convenient right of way available to the public after the order has been made. The amendment seeks to give him power to require the agency to provide an alternative.
Amendment No. 229A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 229B, which requires that the draft order and plan be open to public inspection and be available for purchase. That is in line with other legislation. It also requires the agency to provide for public inspection a statement of its reasons for wanting to extinguish the right of way.
Amendment No. 229C seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to send to all local authorities concerned not just the notice but also a copy of the draft order and the agency's statement of reasons. Amendment No. 229D is a paver for Amendment No. 229E, which requires, first, that the notice, the order and statement of reasons must be served on persons prescribed by regulation. That is found in other legislation. It was first introduced in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to avoid local authorities having to advertise orders in the London Gazette.
Finally, Amendment No. 233A seeks to fill what seems to be a gap in the schedule, in that there is no requirement to tell anyone of the Secretary of State's decision on the draft order. The amendment requires similar publicity to be given to the decision to that given in the first instance to the proposal to make the order.
I hope that what is a fairly long series of amendments which perhaps look a little complicated on paper will be seen as clear and straightforward in their intention. I hope, too, that the Minister will be consulting the bodies in membership of the Rights of Way Review Committee, which is chaired by his honourable friend the Member for Tiverton, on the guidance that he proposes to give to the Urban Regeneration Agency on rights of way matters. There is clearly a great deal of detail on which the experience of bodies dealing with these issues would be very valuable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I rise to speak to the other amendments within this group. I also support those proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I am addressing specifically Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 to 233. These are further attempts to amend Schedule 19 so as to reduce some of the arbitrary powers either of the Urban Regeneration Agency or the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 229 and 233 seek to establish that there is a public inquiry before a right of way is extinguished. I should like to make a further statement about why rights of way are so important. It is not just a matter of access, exercise, and exploration but partly because of the very nature of large new developments with an urban area. They can far too easily become an island of modern development cut off from the surrounding houses and other more long-standing parts of the townscape. This alienation certainly occurred in the Isle of Dogs. I apologise for returning again to the London docklands development but it is one of the major examples that we have.
One of the things that the local community felt most bitter about were the walls that went up around these grand new buildings and the fact that access which they had long enjoyed to river frontages—I do not think that they had established rights of way but there was certainly public access to walks along the river—was suddenly cut in half by these large new developments. This embitterment and alienation can so easily occur where people have been used to travelling through a part of their local neighbourhood and suddenly find that they can no longer do so because a strange development has suddenly been put down in the middle of their familiar surroundings.

1959
This is perhaps another part of the plea we have been making about the importance of carrying the local community—the need for partnership, motivation, acceptance, consultation and working with the grain rather than against it. That is another important reason for not extinguishing the rights of way in too arbitrary a fashion. What may appear as a trivial closure to a developer may in fact be a serious disruption to the life of the community and to local people. It is for that reason that we are suggesting that there should be a public inquiry—some of the amendments suggest that—before a right of way is extinguished. The other amendments seek to restrain the Secretary of State's powers. With the Act as currently drafted he has the arbitrary power to ignore objections, which seems a strange thing to write into an Act, but that is currently there. The amendments seek to remove that arbitrary part of his decision making from him. The amendments are in support of established rights of way.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introduced her amendments and described the day that we spent together walking by the Thames, opening the London Walking Forum. That is perhaps a measure of the Government's commitment to rights of way and to extending them throughout the country and particularly in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will be delighted to know that in the development of West India Docks in London's Docklands the LDDC took down the old dock walls and opened up to local people an area which had been closed to them for generations.
Amendments Nos. 229 to 233 would require a public inquiry to be held before the Secretary of State can make an order extinguishing a right of way. An inquiry would have to be held no matter how small or unused the right of way and no matter how thorough the alternative provision made by the agency. It would have to be held even if there were no objectors.
We expect extinguishment without a suitable alternative to be exceptional. If, however, the Secretary of State is quite content that he is in full possession of all of the facts and that any alternative is fully adequate, and perhaps even an improvement, then he should be able to extinguish the old right of way without an inquiry. It would not be necessary to hold an inquiry in every case.
The remainder of the amendments in this group would extend the Secretary of State's order-making power to allow him to order a right of way to be diverted as well as extinguished. They would also allow him to order extinguishment only if a suitable alternative were available or were to be created. These provisions, which are similar to those applying to local planning and highway authorities, were designed for bodies responsible for large networks of public paths. They are not appropriate for a development body such as the agency which is working on isolated sites and has no long-term ownership or management role.
The present provisions ensure that rights of way will not be extinguished unless the interests of the
1960
users have been properly taken into account and the agency has good reason for seeking an order. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is only right for the Ramblers Association, which I freely admit has constructed these amendments, to have the opportunity to consider them and I shall not pre-empt what it has to say. However, lest the House has the impression that the Minister and I spend our time on party walks, it is only right to say that, after a swift photocall, we returned to this building for a glass of wine.
The London Walking Forum was an initiative of the Countryside Commission, the Sports Council and other bodies, including in particular the London Planning Advisory Committee, which I chair and which represents the London local authorities. The initiative came from the grass roots, if I may put it that way. We were delighted to have the Minister's endorsement, but the source of the initiative should be recognised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 233A not moved.]
Clause 156 [Power to make designation orders]:
[Amendment No. 233B not moved.]
Clause 157 [Agency as local planning authority]:
[Amendment No. 233C not moved.]
Clause 158 [Adoption of private streets]:
[Amendment No. 233D not moved.]
Clause 159 [Traffic regulation orders for private streets]:
[Amendment No. 233E not moved.]
Schedule 20 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 233F:
Page 252, line 52, at end insert:
("Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)
2A.—(1) In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments etc. subject to investigation), after the entry "Urban development corporations." there shall be inserted the following entry—
"Urban Regeneration Agency."
(2) After Note 10 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following Note—
"11. In the case of the Urban Regeneration Agency no investigation under this Act shall be conducted in respect of any action in connection with functions in relation to town and country planning." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments No. 233G and 236D.
Many of the provisions in the Bill are, not surprisingly, similar to those setting up other sponsored bodies. I have particularly in mind the urban development corporations, new town corporations and housing action trusts. However, I have observed that there is an important safeguard which applies to all those bodies which does not apply to the Urban Regeneration Agency. All are subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman—or the Local Commissioner for Administration—the Local Government Ombudsman. Indeed, UDCs are subject to both.
I recognise that the agency will be responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State who will report on, and answer for, its activities, but this does not seem to be sufficient reason for omitting it from the scrutiny of the ombudsman, particularly in view of the precedents. I have followed the urban development corporation model in tabling these amendments. They would enable the ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration against the agency unless the complaint concerned planning matters in a designated area. In that case, the local government ombudsman would be able to investigate. I hope that no such cases will arise, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the amendments are both beneficial and well precedented. I hope that he will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for these amendments. However, I have difficulty with the drafting of Amendment No. 233F. Subsection (2) states:
"In the case of the Urban Regeneration Agency … in respect of any action in connection with functions in relation to"
I wonder whether the noble Earl would be kind enough to withdraw his amendment and reconsider its drafting.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has done a service to the House in tabling these amendments and in explaining them so well. It is indeed the case that new town corporations, UDCs and HATs are subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or, where more appropriate, the Commissioner for Local Administration. On that basis, although the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has spotted a potential error, I am happy with the drafting and happy to accept the amendment. If, however, on reflection we find that there is a drafting error, we can always amend the provisions on Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 233G:
Page 254, line 11, at end insert:
("Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
4B.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (be) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bf) the Urban Regeneration Agency;".
(2) In subsection (7) of section 26 of that Act (matters subject to investigation) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(ba) where the complaint relates to the Urban Regeneration Agency, any designated area within the meaning of Part III of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;".
(3) In Schedule 5 to that Act (matters not subject to investigation) after paragraph 7 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"8. Action taken by the Urban Regeneration Agency which is not action in connection with functions in relation to town and country planning." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 234 to 236:
Page 254, line 24, at end insert:
("National Heritage Act 1983 (c. 47)
. After subsection (2A) of section 33 of the National Heritage Act 1983 (general functions of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2B) In relation to England, the Commission may make, or join in the making of, applications under section (Applications by certain public bodies)(1) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and may exercise, or participate in the exercise of, any rights or powers conferred by a scheme approved on any such application.".").
Page 258, line 1, at end insert:
(" .—(1) In subsection (1) of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (general duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions), after the words "powers under" there shall be inserted the words "or by virtue of".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section there shall be added at the end "and section (Applications by certain public bodies) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993".").
Page 258, line 2, leave out ("the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Repeals]:
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 236A:
Page 258, line 47, column 3, at end insert ("Section 124(3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 236B:
Page 260, line 45, column 3, at end insert ("Section 164.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 174 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 236C:
Page 168, line 13 after ("the") insert ("Leasehold Reform,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 236C would add the words "Leashold Reform" at the beginning of the Short Title of the Bill. In moving that amendment, I am speaking also to Amendment No. 236CA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which, by way of alternative, would add "Leasehold" after the word "Housing" in the Short Title.
I moved this amendment in Committee and, after it had received wide support from all sides of the Chamber, my noble friend Lord Goschen said that he would like to take it away and think again about it. I had the impression when he rose to speak that he was disposed to advise rejection. He said that the general principle on Short Titles is that they should be just that, as short as possible.
If the addition of one word would make the Short Title short enough, I should be pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, but I prefer my amendment. My noble friend went on to say that the purpose of the Short Title is to provide a short

1963
form of reference to the Bill in other Acts and elsewhere, rather than to describe the contents of the Bill. To add "leasehold reform" to the beginning of the Short Title could not be properly described as adding to the description of the contents of the Bill. It largely describes the Bill itself.
It may still be the will of most noble Lords present that the label on the bottle should describe what is in it, although there may be many of my noble friends who would prefer not just that the Bill had a Short Title and a Long Title but a government health warning. I hope that I shall now hear from my noble friend that his considerations have led him to advise acceptance of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my amendment is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. Like him, I prefer his amendment to mine. I tabled my amendment so as to respond to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has referred. Legislation is often difficult to follow. If we can guide readers to the right statute, that may be doing them a service. In these days of computers if the Bill's title contains a word which obviously refers to the contents of the Bill, then when the user inputs the relevant term one might hope that, gremlins permitting, the output will be correct. I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when we discussed the Short Title of the Bill in Committee, I explained, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine reiterated, that the purpose of a Short Title is to be just that: as short as possible, so that it can be easily referred to in other Acts and subordinate legislation and by people who are seeking to use its provisions. "Housing" was chosen as the shortest term to cover the provisions of Parts I and II.
We have been given two alternative suggestions, both of which would make the title longer and rather more cumbersome. It is, however, the clear will of your Lordships to reflect the most substantial part of the Bill in its title. I do have sympathy with that desire. We prefer, as it would seem do your Lordships, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, which better reflects the structure of the Bill and is rather neater. I am pleased to accept that amendment, therefore, and would ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236CA not moved.]
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 236D:
Page 168, line 38, after ("section") insert ("paragraph 2A of Schedule 20").
On Question, amendment agreed to. In the Title:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 237:
Line 2, leave out ("extend the right to enfranchisement or') and insert ("make further provision with respect to enfranchisement by").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 237A not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 238:
Line 6, leave out ("Part III") and insert ("Parts III and IV").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah Bill formerly Dawat-e- Hadiyah (England) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Unibank Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Leeds Supertram Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before ten o'clock.