§ Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 33.
§
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8)—Regulations may make provision to extend regulations made under section 5(1)(h) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (relating to the payment of housing benefit) to the provision of information or evidence for the determination of an) matter under this section by such persons as may be prescribed.").
§
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34, which is grouped with it. These are probing amendments which seek to delete the subsections allowing for regulations to make provisions requiring information or evidence to be furnished,
by such persons as may be prescribed",
and instead provide for regulations under Section 5(1)(h) jof the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
§ The reason for moving the amendments is that in Committee on 26th March, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the provisions which the Government were then proposing replicating to a large extent the regulations for housing benefit. I move these amendments in order to ask what the differences might be. Since there is full provision for such matters in the 1992 Act, I have suggested that that should apply also under this Act. But I merely wish to inquire of the Government whether there are any distinctions and if there are, whether they are immaterial. I beg to move.
Lord LucasMy Lords, now that it has been revealed to me what the amendments are for, I shall have to say that I shall write to the noble Baroness because I do not have an answer with me here.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not rather odd that we have reached Report state, amendments are tabled but the Government have no response to this at all?
Lord LucasMy Lords, my response to the amendments is that we like things the way they are. We believe that the purpose of the amendments, as we have seen them, is already provided by Clauses 33(8) and 34(5), which allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring any information or evidence needed to be provided by any such person as may be prescribed. Therefore, we believe that the effect of the amendments is already covered.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised certain detailed points. I should like an opportunity to consider them and cover them in detail and I shall write to her about them. I am afraid that I do not have the necessary information with me to enable me to do that off the cuff.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I shall look forward to the Minister's response. I should have thought that the question would be apparent from the tabling of the amendments, although I concede that they were tabled late—not too late but late. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 34 [Determination of amount of grant in case of landlord's application]:
§ [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
§ Clause 37 [Decision and notification]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
858
("The total of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) is referred to in this Chapter as 'the estimated expense'.
() If the authority notify the applicant under subsection (1) that the application is approved, they shall specify in the notice—
() If the authority notify the applicant under subsection (1) that the application is refused, they shall at the same time notify him of the reasons for the refusal.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 55.
§ When the Bill was being discussed in Committee, I said that I would reflect further on two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that would place a duty on a local authority to tell an applicant how the cost of the grant works is arrived at or why a grant is refused. This is an important issue and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it to the attention of the House.
§ I hold the view that good local authorities already do what the amendments would require, but there is merit in converting good practice into a general rule. That is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 35, which would require authorities to provide such information. Amendment No. 55 is consequential upon this. I beg to move.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. Thanks must go also to the solicitors housing law practitioners. I am not sufficiently creative to have drafted that myself but I thank the Government for responding.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that these amendments are reasonable and we shall not oppose them. I am glad that the Government feel that they have had ample time to respond to amendments that have been tabled and I look forward to future responses coming forward rather more quickly than was the case on the previous amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 39 [Delayed payment of mandatory grant]:
§
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 36:
Leave out Clause 39.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 37 and 38. The purpose of the amendments is to place a duty on local authorities to pay a grant upon satisfactory completion of the works and to remove the delay of 12 months which is proposed for the payment of disabled facilities grants.
§ Disabled facilities grants are vital to help disabled people remain in their own homes. The provision of suitable housing is a cornerstone of community care policies. In the main, that is achieved through adaptations, because 50 per cent. of all disabled facilities grants involve the redesign of a dwelling, including adaptations to bathrooms, kitchens or other living areas 859 by, for example, widening doors. That is essential work which enables a disabled person to live in his own home as independently as possible.
§ The most serious problem for disabled people who apply for grants is the lengthy wait before there is an assessment and then having to have the application processed before works can begin. Reports of adaptations taking over two years to he completed are not uncommon. That is caused by delays in assessment and processing of grant applications followed by lengthy building works.
§ The proposals within the Bill would add an extra waiting time into a system which already gives rise to very serious problems in relation to delays. Local authorities would have up to 12 months in which to commence payment from the date of application. As they have an initial six months to agree the application, the proposal would allow a further delay of six months. In most cases where there is a substantial amount of work to be done payment is made in instalments, so that the date on which payments begin is the date on which the work begins. Basically, if a local authority saw fit, the works would not start for a year after the application was made and there would he a further 12 months in which to complete it, so a disabled person would have to wait for two years for the adaptations to be completed.
§ The Government have confirmed that the reason for the extra delay is to allow the local authority to manage its capital. They feel that it will help authorities with their financial management by giving them the discretion to withhold payment of mandatory disabled facilities grants for up to 12 months after the date of application. The Government have further acknowledged that on occasions that may inconvenience the disabled person; but they must strike a balance between inconveniencing the disabled person and inconveniencing the local authority.
§ However, there is no support within local authority organisations for the proposals. Both the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils have stated that they do not support the proposed delay and feel that it is not required. In fact, I understand that, if I had not been persuaded by RADAR to table the amendment, those two organisations would have persuaded another Member of this House to table a similar amendment.
§
In their joint response to the initial consultation document, those organisations stated that,
the hopes and expectations of the disabled person will have been raised with the approval of the grant for work, but the contractor may not be prepared to start work … and may then demand a premium or refuse to do the work in prices have risen".
§
They further stated that contractors.
may then not be prepared to carry out Disabled Facilities Grant work".
§ The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation recently contacted the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which confirmed that it still opposes the proposals. If the associations representing local authorities do not want the proposals, why are the Government introducing them for the benefit of local authorities?
860§ Unfortunately for disabled people who are awaiting adaptations which are urgently required to allow them to live in their own homes the extra delay will be more than just an inconvenience. Many disabled people are waiting in hospital for adaptations to their homes to allow them to leave hospital and return home. That is not only distressing for the individuals involved but it is also very expensive. Department of Health statistics, for example, estimate that a geriatric bed costs over £700 a week. Any delay would, therefore, be costly; but a delay of six months would cost in the region of £20,000. That is surely unreasonable when the only reason is to aid the cashflow of a local authority. The average disabled facilities grant award is for less than £4,000, yet costs of several times that amount could be accrued for a hospital bed while the application is help up. The delay would not only be serious for people in hospital but also for disabled people whose quality of life is very poor because of their housing and because they have considerable care requirements.
§ Even if local authorities inform the disabled person of when they will be starting the payment, the disabled person will still have to wait. Although the waiting may be slightly less painful if you have some idea when it will end, that is not a tremendous help to someone stuck in hospital or who cannot get out of his own home. The delay itself will still bring tremendous hardship.
§ Disabled people are already very often waiting a long time for disabled facilities grants. The system requires improvement to shorten those delays rather than lengthening them. To build in an additional delay in payment allegedly to help local authorities with their cashflow, even if the local authority must inform the disabled person of the likely payment date, will cause serious difficulties and hardship. As the disabled facilities grants will be supported by a specific capital grant, this delay, as far as I can see, is neither required nor warranted. I beg to move.
§ 8.15 p.m.
The Earl of BalfourMy Lords, perhaps I may just point out one of the practical problems involved in such applications. There is a government scheme whereby a 75 per cent. grant is available for replacing lead pipes. I had the problem of replacing lead pipes for part of the estate in my own home. The local authority said, "Yes, you may go ahead and replace them, but we are sorry we have run out of money and can't pay you the grant". Such a situation can sometimes arise. I say that because the end of a financial year for a local authority falls at the end of March. Therefore, by January, the authority may well have run out of money. It may well give a person permission to start the work in March and say, "Yes, you may start the work now, but we are sorry we can't pay you for it until next year". From a purely practical point of view that can indeed he a problem. I agree with my noble friend in that respect.
§ Baroness Park of MonmouthMy Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say to what degree there is 861 consultation between the Department of Health and the department which is dealing with the Bill? It seems to me that the major point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen turns to some extent on what is perhaps a lack of consultation and, indeed, a lack of awareness of the repercussions of the actions of one department on another.
§ Lord MonkswellMy Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. I should like to compliment him on the very admirable and powerful way that he moved it. Indeed, the arguments put forward by the noble Lord are virtually irrefutable. However, I wonder whether the Minister could take on board another aspect which was not stressed by the noble Lord; namely, the impact that the provision in the Bill is likely to have on small businesses.
We can perhaps imagine the situation as regards the disabled person, the small businessman who is likely to be making the adaptation, providing the facilities, and so on, and the local authority; in other words, there are three parties involved. It seems to me that one of the results of the Bill as it stands is that, yes, the cashflow arrangements for a local authority may be very nicely streamlined and very efficient on paper, but the likely result in terms of the individuals that it affects—in particular, the disabled person and the small businessman—is that they will have to try to fit in with the local authority's timetable.
We should think for a moment about the small businessman. The chances are that he is not only undertaking such work for the disabled client; indeed, he is no doubt also undertaking other work. Therefore, it will make sense for him to have the flexibility to negotiate with the disabled person as regards the most convenient time to complete the work and also to take on board his own work schedules as regards the other work that he may be doing. In other words, he will try to undertake the work at a time that is most convenient both to the client and to himself. I am sure that the Government will recognise that that would be a very sensible way of organising the work.
However, because of the way the Bill is written at present such a situation will be turned around. Indeed, both the disable person and the small businessman carrying out the work will be dictated to in terms of when they receive payment from the local authority. It is worth remembering that most local authorities are multi-million pound operations. Even if one takes the housing sector within a local authority, that still constitutes a fairly big business concern, if I may put it that way. Therefore, its ability to accommodate minor changes in its cashflow is surely much better than the ability of a small businessman or, indeed, that of the disabled client in determining their affairs. I hope that the Government will, dare I say it, go along with their own philosophy in terms of providing sensible support and recognising the problems that small businessmen have to face. I also hope that they will look again at matter and perhaps agree to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Local authorities have problems with regard to a large range of demand-led services. Inevitably there are problems as unforeseen demands have to be met as the financial year progresses and budgets are not available. It seems to me that this is the last group of people in respect of whom one should try to alter the balance of those arrangements. If I may say so, this measure is morally misconceived.
I am also puzzled that the Government feel it necessary—if they have to have this clause—to give themselves the opportunity to alter the period of 12 months. I can see the logic of a 12 month period in that it takes one to the same point in the next financial year, but why should the Secretary of State have the possibility of varying that period on a basis which we cannot at this point know, and indeed may never have the opportunity properly to scrutinise? I find that puzzling, but I do not particularly wish to pursue the puzzle because I should like to get rid of the clause altogether.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, and indeed with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has made. It is an odd subsection in a clause of a Bill which specifies,
That date shall not be more than twelve months, or such other period as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State".Why have that provision in the clause at all? We have no ability to scrutinise the Secretary of State's decision, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I was intrigued by the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, as to whether there had been any discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health on this matter. At a later stage in the Bill we shall reach a point when I shall ask whether there has been any discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry on the Bill. I wonder whether the Government are speaking with one voice on this matter. I rather doubt it. I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say in reply to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which basically we support.
Lord LucasMy Lords, my noble friend made clear in Committee that he shared the concerns of other noble Lords about Clause 39. I explained that mandatory grants restrict local authorities' ability to maintain control over their resources, and that our purpose in bringing forward Clause 39 was to help local authorities in their financial management. I said that we envisaged the provision would only be used in exceptional circumstances. My noble friend suggested that we give thought to making clearer that the provision should only be used in exceptional circumstances, perhaps by rewording the clause. I share his views on the importance of bringing this message out, but it is simply not an appropriate matter to be placed on the face of the Bill. Rather it is up to us to make it clear in the guidance we shall issue to local authorities explaining the new provisions. This we shall do.
863 This is a clause which is for the benefit of local authorities to enable them to manage their cash flows. If local authorities do not wish to make use of it, they will not do so. They will not need to make use of it, and they will not. If they need to make use of it, we think it is right that this provision should be there so that they can—within a certain limited extent—manage their cash flows. As I said in Committee, this will result in occasional inconvenience for some disabled people. That is a balance which we feel should be struck. However, it will not result in great inconvenience for contractors. They will know—and the disabled person will know—when the money is to be paid. The local authority has to say when the money is to be paid so they will know when the money is going to be there. It will be up to the contractor to decide whether he does the work early and waits for payment, or whether he waits until the money is there before doing the work. There will be no uncertainty.
§ Lord MonkswellMy Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way, but I wonder whether he appreciates the situation. It may be that there is some certainty as to when the money will be paid, but the Minister needs to recognise that there are other criteria to be taken into account. A small businessman may decide that the work will take two weeks to complete, and therefore he will start the work two weeks before the date on which payment can be made. But what happens if the work takes either a shorter or longer time, and that confuses the date of payment? The whole matter is a case of effectively dictating to the small businessman and the disabled person rather than allowing them the flexibility to adjust the time in which the work is done to the best convenience of both parties involved.
Lord LucasMy Lords, to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is right. Of course this is not perfect in terms of the convenience of the disabled person or the contractor. But, as I said, we feel that is a balance which should be struck. As regards the power to vary the 12 month period, this would be done by negative resolution. It is felt wise to have this power to allow for unknown possibilities that may lie ahead. In case this proves to be the wrong time limit in practice, we felt that we should have in place in the legislation the power to vary it. However, we have no current intention to vary it.
As regards relations with the Department of Health, I can assure noble Lords that they are excellent. We have to work closely with the Department of Health on these matters. This is very much an inter-departmental area and we feel that we work extremely well and closely with the department. I am afraid that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Balfour that it is just a fact of life that money may be short one year and one has to postpone some expenditure into the next year. Local authorities face that sort of difficulty with their budgets, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said. In imposing a mandatory grant upon them, we feel that we should allow them the flexibility they will need to escape from a financial bind in exceptional circumstances.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he respond to the point that the 12 month norm which is in the Bill at the moment is 864 really not required by local authorities? I am advised by local authority associations that this is not needed. If it is in the Bill, it is wrongly looked on as a norm. Perhaps the Government would reconsider—given the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, and indeed others—the cash flow problems, because I am advised (as I say, deliberately) that local authorities and, recently, local authority associations do not consider the 12 month limit in the Bill to be appropriate.
Lord LucasMy Lords, certainly I shall look at the situation when we have finished with the Report stage of this Bill. If it turns out that local authorities have risen up as a body and demanded the abolition of this 12 month rule which is there for their benefit—in exceptional circumstances—I do not doubt that we shall take cognisance of that. But if they are demanding it they have not told me, and if they have not told me they cannot expect me to know about it.
§ Lord SwinfenMy Lords, there is a small crumb of comfort there in that my noble friend will at least consider the matter. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I have also heard that local authorities do not require this measure in the Bill. They feel they can manage perfectly adequately without having the power to delay payment by up to a year. I do not think my noble friend, or possibly his advisers, have taken into account that with delays in putting the work in hand there will possibly be rises in costs due to inflation, no matter how small. Materials rise in cost and therefore when the work comes to be done the funds are not available.
My noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out that local authorities may run out of funds. They may run out of funds but they are able to plan their work ahead in this area because it takes some months to get the assessment done. There are also instances of local authorities spending money rather wastefully towards the end of the financial year because they are desperate to spend it to make certain they get the Government grant so they have the same amount to spend the following year. That is because the Treasury has not yet learnt that a good housekeeper is able to spread her money over more than one week, or more than one month, or more than one year, and to do the job properly. It might be an idea to have a good housewife as the senior civil servant in the Treasury. I know that my wife manages to make me far more sensible with money than I would be otherwise.
I believe that my noble friend should give this matter further consideration. It is a totally unnecessary clause in the Bill. It is rather insulting in suggesting to local authorities that they cannot manage their affairs.
Because of this clause, the odd, poorly-managed local authority may use the provision as an excuse to delay payment for its own purposes, for one reason or another. Without this clause, it would not have that reason.
I was tempted to divide the House, but the hour is late. My noble friend has said that he will give the matter consideration. Therefore, I shall not risk having the House counted out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 40 [Payment of grants: conditions as to carrying out of the works]:
§ [Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
§ Clause 41 [payment of grants: conditions as to contractors employed]:
§
Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 23, line 31, at end insert ("and competition between contractors for grant work will disregard that part of the estimated cost of work attributable to value added tax").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
§ Your Lordships will be aware that in Committee we discussed competition between VAT-registered contractors and those contractors who are not registered for VAT and who can therefore produce a competitive bid which VAT-liable contractors might not be able to meet.
§
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that he sympathised with those anxieties. He said:
I shall give further thought to the matters raised and how best they may be achieved and will return to the noble Lord in one fashion or another before Report".—[Official Report, 26 March 1996; col. 1669.]
§ I have received a number of letters from the noble Lord on various matters with regard to the Bill. I am not sure that this specific item has been covered. I am not sure that the noble Lord has made a commitment in one fashion or another to respond to the amendment that we produced in Committee.
§ I do not wish to go into the arguments put forward in Committee. The objective of moving the amendment this evening is to give the noble Lord an opportunity to respond "in one fashion or another" to the problem. Noble Lords will be aware of the problem having no doubt read our deliberations in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord LucasMy Lords, I am happy to return to this matter. The noble Lord is right in saying that he raised the issue in Committee, and we promised to consider it and come back to it. And come back to it we now have. I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that this is an issue which we feel should be covered in guidance. This is not a matter that we find sufficiently simple or straightforward to set out on the face of the Bill.
As I am sure the noble Lord, with his accountancy skills, will realise, the matter is complicated. Contractors not registered for VAT are still required to pay VAT on the materials they acquire. On the other hand, VAT-registered contractors recover costs that they incur. In providing for equal treatment of competing estimates, we would also wish to see that covered. We would expect guidance to cover all the matters which an authority should take into account when assessing estimates submitted with grant applications. This should stress the need for genuine and full competition of estimates covering issues such as VAT registration as well as the reputation of the contractor and his ability to carry out the works to a good standard and in good time.
866 I hope that this is satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I feel we think very much along the same lines and share the concern to make it more difficult for so-called cowboy builders to operate. Building is a most politically correct industry. It is the only one I know where the Indians are the good guys.
With those words, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say this. I do not normally spring to the defence of the Government. However, I received a letter on the subject from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and found it convincing. In addition to casting me as the ventriloquist dummy of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I may also have been cast as the mailbox of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for disavowing her role as the doppelgänger of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, or my mailbox. I may have received such a letter. However, I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I received copies of many letters sent by the noble Lord since Committee stage. I may have missed that one. Nonetheless, the argument is made. The fact that there is a ministerial record of what has been said this evening will be helpful. If that is in guidance, so be it.
I think that there is nothing between the noble Lord and me. We believe that it is right that there should be fair and proper competition between contractors. If that is properly expressed in guidance, given what the noble Lord said in a House of Parliament this evening, I am sure that the courts will take due notice of this in interpreting anything that may come out in guidance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord LucasMy Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say that we believe we set out this matter in a letter to the noble Lord. However, given our previous performance to date, perhaps it was addressed to Chas. Elvel and went astray.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I have been known by many names in my varied career but never by Chas. Elvel! No doubt officials from the Department of the Environment invent many different names for many of us. In future I shall watch whatever E-mail may come in any direction and try to pick up what the officials in the Department of the Environment wish to send me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 45 [Cases in which grants may be re-calculated, withheld or repaid]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 26, line 13, at end insert—
() the authority ascertain that the amount was determined under section 33 or 34 on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information and exceeds that to which the applicant was entitled;").
§ The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
867§ Amendment No. 40 extends the circumstances set out in Clause 45 in which grant may be recalculated, withheld or repaid. Our intention is to cover the situation where an applicant was awarded an erroneous amount of grant. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would amend Clause 46 to cover a similar situation and also the case where the applicant deliberately has given false information or withheld information to gain excess grant.
§ The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke to two similar amendments tabled in his name at Committee stage. We considered that the noble Lord's amendments raised a point which the Bill did not adequately address and I said in Committee that we would give further thought to them.
§ Amendment No. 40 is the result of our deliberations. In bringing forward this amendment, we are seeking to take on board the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. We believe that Clause 45 is a more appropriate place to deal with the case where the wrong amount of grant has been awarded since that clause already addresses those cases where an authority is able to redetermine the amount of grant, withhold grant or require it to be repaid. By contrast, Clause 46—which the noble Lord's amendments would amend—deals only with cases where an applicant was not entitled to any grant of the description in question.
§ The noble Lord's Amendment No. 42 seeks to cover a specific circumstance—deliberately giving false information or withholding information. We remain of the view that much of this ground is already covered by subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 46 and by way of common law, and we see no need for the noble Lord's amendment.
§ I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. I beg to move.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the concerns that we expressed. Amendment No. 40 meets many of them, which we appreciate. I have slight reservations about the Minister's comments on amendments to Clause 46. I accept that they may well be covered in common law but nevertheless certain things in Clause 46 could be put into the Bill rather than left to the common law procedures. That said, the Government have gone as far as I can expect in this instance and no doubt the matter will be raised in another place when the Bill goes there. I shall not move my Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 46 [Repayment where applicant not entitled to grant]:
§ [Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
§ Clause 48 [Condition for repayment on disposal: renovation grants]:
§ [Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 29, line 2, leave out from ("in") to ("as") in line 3 and insert ("a hospital, hospice, sheltered housing, residential care home or similar institution").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Clause 49 [Clause for repayment on disposal: common parts grants]:
§
Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 29, line 36, leave out ("with the consent of") and insert ("where they deem it reasonable, and provided they report their action and reasons to").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I apologise for breaking the grouping, but it was a matter of moving from one amendment to another rather quickly. Therefore I wish at the same time as speaking to Amendment No. 45 to speak to Amendment No. 43, which I did not move, and Amendment No. 46. The purpose is to remove the necessity for the Secretary of State to consent to a local authority using its discretion under this section to waive grant repayment, subject to the local authority reporting its action to the Secretary of State.
§ Noble Lords will be aware that a similar amendment was discussed at Committee stage to remove the Secretary of State's consent altogether. In response, it appeared that the Government wished to adjust their view on two grounds—first, the need for nationally consistent criteria and, secondly, the need in order to consider changes to Clause 57, for the Secretary of State to keep himself informed, or to he kept informed, about the case of such discretion.
§ We are not entirely happy about that. Nationally consistent criteria are not appropriate, in our view, in decisions on whether to waive grant repayment which are made in the light of specific local knowledge. This is not something that can be nationally determined. The most frequent circumstances in which local authorities waive repayment are when a property is sold and there is not enough equity in the property to allow the repayment of grant as well as outstanding mortgage costs. In those cases, many councils—and I give the example of Bradford—would waive repayment, particularly where the cost of grant was not equal to any subsequent increase in the value of properties. I hope it goes without saying that in the city areas that is a problem. It is therefore, in our view, unreasonable for the Secretary of State to try to impose national criteria which apply across the board on what local authorities should do. We believe that that should be left to local authorities.
§ The second issue is how the Secretary of State should be kept informed. We believe that local authorities should report on how they use their discretion to waive repayment. The Secretary of State can then consider whether changes to Clause 57 are necessary in the light of the reports from local authorities.
§ I apologise for not having moved Amendment No. 43, but it and Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 basically cover the same problem. I should be grateful if the noble Lord 869 could respond when he has received advice from the proper quarters on the points that I have made. I beg to move.
§ Lord MonkswellMy Lords, I spoke at some length on this subject at Committee stage and do not plan to go through all arguments that I raised then. I hope that the Government will treat the amendments sympathetically. I wish to make one point to reinforce the arguments of my noble friend Lord Williams.
Depending on the situation of the local authority, that authority may take a decision that it will be good policy in the locality to waive repayment of grants. There are two reasons for that: first, there may be a history of instability of employment in the area. The council knows that the chances of someone being made redundant or falling into unemployment are quite high. There is also the consequent chance of people from the area finding work elsewhere and moving house. Secondly, we need to recognise the community benefit that accrues from modernisation and improvement of derelict private housing. We may think in terms of the crime and vandalism which can quite often become endemic where a whole area is run down. That lays costs on the local authority and the local community in dealing with the problems.
The local authority can get a policy going, with an interesting archetypal public-private initiative involving public and private finance, to regenerate an area through the deployment of home improvement grants. If the local authority does that, people may put investment into their houses and use home improvements grants in the knowledge that they will not be penalised if, through force of circumstances, they have to move out of the area. That will provide tremendous benefit to the local community which will outweigh the expenditure of the grant money which in other areas would be clawed back. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendments.
Lord LucasMy Lords, it is a condition of grant that where there is a disposal of the property, other than in certain specified circumstances, during the condition period, grant should be repaid. Clauses 48, 49 and 50 each contain a provision allowing a determination to be made not to demand repayment—or to demand a lesser amount.
The amendments would transfer the power to make such a determination to the local authority, without a requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. The authority would, instead, notify the Secretary of State of its action and of the reasons for making the determination.
We believe it is right that, except in certain circumstances over which the grant applicant has little or no control, the recipient of a grant should be asked to repay the grant if the purposes for which he received it no longer apply. The Secretary of State has a duty to safeguard the public purse in making sure that resources allocated are used for the purpose intended.
We have sought to exclude the most commonly occurring circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to demand grant repayment in Clause 57, 870 which sets out the categories of disposal exempt from the repayment condition. We have also provided, in Clause 48(5), for the local authority to use its discretion not to demand repayment where the disposal is made necessary by age or infirmity.
We accept that there could be other circumstances not covered by these provisions where it would be unreasonable to demand repayment or to demand the full amount, and that the local authority will wish to make a case for a waiver of a demand.
If the principle of repayment is to be applied fairly, it is desirable that, as far as possible, there should be parity of treatment between grant applicants, regardless of where they live or where their property is situated. We believe that the Secretary of State is best placed to ensure such parity of treatment.
It will be for the local authority to decide that a case for a waiver should be made, but if each case is referred to the Secretary of State for consent, he will be able to ensure that the same criteria are applied in reaching a decision, for the whole country.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would require notification to the Secretary of State of the action taken by authorities and of the reasons for their action. However, while that would keep him informed of the circumstances arising in which action is likely to be required, there would appear to be, in practice, little that the Secretary of State could do if he were unhappy with the local authority's actions.
For the reasons given, I believe there to be a need for the Secretary of State to retain overall control of the use of grant resources and that, as part of that control, he should have the final say in whether or not a demand for repayment of grant on breach of the disposal condition should be made. That is not only for reasons of Treasury but for reasons of fairness.
I appreciate that my reply may not entirely satisfy the noble Lord. However, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply as far as it goes. He is right in saying that it does not entirely satisfy the concerns I have raised, and indeed am advised should be raised. However, as he quite rightly said, this is a late stage in the Bill's passage in this House. It still has to go to another place and this matter will certainly be discussed there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 50 [Condition for repayment on disposal: HMO grants]:
§ [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
§ Clause 51 [Condition as to owner-occupation: renovation grants]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 30, One 40, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 41.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 48. These amendments will mean that where a property is disposed of to an associate of the 871 person making the disposal under Section 57(1)(a) or a disposal under a will or intestacy under Section 57(1)(b), the owner-occupation condition will continue for the new owner.
§ The change ensures that the owner-occupation condition for renovation grants is consistent with the condition in Clause 48 for repayment on disposal after a renovation grant has been given. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 30, line 42, at end insert ("if there is a relevant disposal of the dwelling that is an exempt disposal, other than—
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 55 [Power to impose other conditions with consent of Secretary of State]:
§
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 33, line 2, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,").
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 45 allows a local housing authority to impose conditions on its approval of an application for grant but those conditions are to be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. I seek to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, to which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will speak when moving what is perhaps a slightly more moderate amendment than mine.
§ When we discussed this matter in Committee, I commented that the provision seemed to add to the Secretary of State's own administrative caseload. I said that that was perhaps a matter for him and not for me. On reflection, I should have said that it was a matter for me. It is a matter for all noble Lords. After all, we are all concerned with good administration. As I read this provision, it requires consent in every particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may tell me that that is not so.
§ At that time I asked, if the Government were not minded to concede the point, whether the Minister would explain how the power was to be used; and in particular whether the Government proposed to give umbrella consents—in other words, consents covering specific categories. For instance, standards of management, repair, maintenance, nomination rights and that type of thing could perhaps be approved in a general way and therefore be available to he imposed by local authorities.
§ My concern about this provision is that it seems to be contradictory to the aim of allowing local authorities to use the grant system flexibly in support of their own local strategic aims. To have to go to the Secretary of 872 State for consent on what may be many occasions seems extremely cumbersome, and indeed goes against the spirit of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. As she pointed out, our amendments are slightly milder than hers.
In Committee, as noble Lords may recall, we sought to remove entirely the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. The Government rejected that, arguing that there must be an element of central control so as to ensure that all local authorities adopt a consistency of approach across the country. On different occasions the Government have argued in different ways. I am not quite sure whether we stand on that point. I am quite satisfied that a balance has to be struck between discretion on the part of local authorities and the need for national consistency.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that in this case the Government have got it wrong. If local authorities are to use the grant system flexibly in support of their local aims and to maximise the system's effectiveness in meeting specific local housing need, they really must be free to do so without seeking the Secretary of State's consent in every conceivable instance.
The Government rejected our argument in Committee, so we are offering a slightly modified version. The amendment to which I speak would have three purposes. First, it would remove the requirement to seek the Secretary of State's consent when a local housing authority imposes additional conditions on grant aid. It would seek also to make the exercise of discretion by local authorities the subject of guidance by the Secretary of State. So it is a gentler amendment than those we moved in Committee. But it would also require the Secretary of State to consult before the issue of such guidance.
If I had my choice, I should go with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, since that was the one we moved in Committee. Nevertheless, I offer a slightly reduced, milder amendment in the hope that the Government may concede an inch or two on this matter.
§ 9 p.m.
Lord LucasMy Lords, it all seems to me very appropriate that New Labour should be a milder version of the Liberal Democrat Party. It fits in very well with current images.
Having listened carefully to what was said in Committee and looked carefully at the amendments, we still hold to the way in which matters are set out in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Ferrers explained in Committee the importance that we attach to ensuring consistency of approach and the need for there to be some control over the rate and nature of the changes to the grant system that the imposition of conditions represents.
873 There is an important obligation on the Secretary of State to protect grant applicants from unfair or unreasonable conditions being applied by a local authority or access to grant being prevented by the application of such conditions. Allowing conditions to be imposed only with the consent of the Secretary of State will provide this reassurance which we believe grant applicants deserve.
But we expect that there will be wide-ranging general consents and umbrella consents covering such conditions as nomination rights on grant improved properties, the recovery of specialised equipment, insurance on grant improved property and the maintenance of improved property. We see those umbrella consents under the control of the Secretary of State providing much of the flexibility that local authorities will need. But we believe that the ultimate control of the use of such consents should be with the Secretary of State.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say how sorry I am to raise this matter. We are having a serious debate about provisions in this Bill. I very much hope that in future the Minister will refrain from what I regard as rather silly comments about the relative standing of different political parties.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, the noble Lord has answered the point about umbrella consents which prompted me to table the amendment in the same form as various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and myself, put forward an amendment at the last stage. I am glad to hear that there will be general consents.
Can the Minister give an assurance now that there will be consultation with the local authority associations in fairly short order with regard to those general consents? While conceding that the Government are to keep central control of the matter, I am sure that they would want to keep control in a way that does not cause falling out with the local authorities.
Lord LucasMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I can confirm that we shall proceed with that consultation.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
§
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
§ LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PUBLISH INFORMATION ON THE GRANTS SYSTEM
§
(" .—(1) A local housing authority shall publish, in simple terms, information on the grants system payable under this Part.
(2) In this section, "publish" means produce information in the preferred reading medium of a member of the public.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new subject that we did not discuss at Committee stage and this is a probing amendment.
§ The purpose of the amendment is to place a duty on a local housing authority to produce information on the house renovation grants, common parts grants, disabled facilities grants, HMO grants and group repair and home repair assistance in accessible formats; in other words, in large print, braille, audio cassette or sign language. It is also intended to comply with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
§ The Government's proposals omit any reference to the provision of information on the grants scheme. It is essential that visually impaired members of the public are informed of the types of grants, the "eligible" criteria, the amount of grant, how to make an application and how the system operates.
§ The amendment deals specifically with the needs of visually impaired people. However, as the House will know, there is also a need to cater for people who do not read or speak English, of whom there are a considerable number in this country. Perhaps my noble friend will also deal with that point in his reply.
§ The amendment may not be well drafted but I am sure that my noble friend understands the principle behind it. If necessary, it can be redrafted and we can return to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I support the amendment. It is only too easy to forget how difficult it is for people in local authority areas to understand how a local authority operates. It is a bureaucratic system which most people find quite hard to penetrate, even with those local authorities which are as receptive as possible to local feeling. Therefore, any amendment which obliges local authorities to publish in simple terms the basis on which they make any grants available can only be for the better. It seems to me that the very people who would benefit from the system are those who would say, "Well, the easier it is for us to understand what the local authority is up to, the better the system works". This is a very simple proposition and I support it.
§ Lord MonkswellMy Lords, I rise to support the amendment. It is wonderful when an amendment put forward to take into account the point of view of disabled people provides a positive benefit to the able-bodied members of our society.
The provision follows from our earlier debate on Amendment No. 1 at the beginning of this part of the Bill, when I argued the importance of local authorities having a policy and a scheme set out on the basis of local circumstances to determine how their discretion would work. This amendment will enable that mechanism to work effectively by providing to the local community a simple explanation of what happens under the local authority's discretionary grant system and how it works. That is inevitably likely to lead to debate and discussion and no doubt improvement and modification as time goes on, depending on the changes in local circumstances.
Lord LucasMy Lords, my noble friend's amendment introduces a new Clause 61 which would require a local housing authority to publish information on the house renovation grant system. I do not feel that primary legislation is the most suitable vehicle to achieve that aim.
We already provide guidance to local authorities under the present legislation, encouraging them to make suitable literature available to inquirers and we intend to continue to issue such advice to accompany this legislation.
My noble friend's amendment would also require that a local authority produce such information:
in the preferred reading medium of a member of the public".That could require the individual authorities to provide literature in any medium requested by a member of the public. That could have significant cost implications. Although it is sensible to produce such literature which is suitable to the needs of a disabled person, it is very much a matter for the authority to decide itself after taking account of the likely demand for such literature. The desirability of such an objective however will also be covered in future guidance. I hope that gives my noble friend the comfort he requires.
§ Lord SwinfenMy Lords, it goes quite a long way towards doing that. A lot of the information that one would expect to be provided will be similar from one authority to another. It may be possible for local authority organisations to get together and produce in various formats—sign language and video cassettes—something that will give everyone the basics; it is the basics that people want to enable them to understand what is happening and how to apply it. In the light of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 61 [Minor definitions: Chapter I]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 36, leave out lines 41 to 44.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 53 to 59 with Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 35. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 62 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter I]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 59:
Page 37, line 20, column 2, leave out "21(2)") and insert ("(Disabled persons) (1) to (3)").
Page 37, line 24, column 2, leave out ("37(3)") and insert ("37(2)").
Page 37, line 34, at end insert—
("introductory tenant— subsection 99").
Page 38, line 30 at end insert—
("secure tenancy and secure tenant section 99").
Page 38, line 30, at end insert—
("social services authority section (Disabled persons) (4)").
Page 38, leave out line 50.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 64 [Qualifying buildings]:
§
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 39, line 8, leave out from ("it") to end of line 9 and insert ("comprises a minimum of two dwellings and satisfies the conditions prescribed for qualifying buildings in relation to a group repair scheme.
Before making any regulations under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers to be representative of local housing authorities.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to the part of the Bill concerning group repair schemes; namely, schemes which allow a local authority to repair the exterior of buildings to which the scheme relates.
§ The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, it seeks to add flexibility to the operation of the clause. As the clause stands, it requires the scheme to apply to four dwellings and the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the number of dwellings covered by the provision to a minimum of two. Secondly, the clause, as amended, would require consultation before the Secretary of State makes changes to the definition of qualifying buildings for the purposes of the scheme.
§ As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to add flexibility to a proposal which has merit, but which would otherwise be rather rigid in its application. Limiting the proposal to four or more houses may miss out worthwhile approaches where four houses do not stand next to each other yet they require the group repair scheme to apply to their exteriors.
§ The provision is sensible. It would enable the grant system to cover everything from a single pair of semi-detached houses to a whole street of terraced houses, provided three-quarters of the properties were in disrepair externally. I believe it makes sense. I beg to move.
Lord LucasMy Lords, this amendment seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that a qualifying building in a group repair scheme must comprise a minimum of two dwellings, compared with the present minimum of four, and it removes the requirement that additional qualifying buildings satisfy conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State. It also makes it a statutory requirement for local authority organisations to be consulted before any regulations are made on group repair.
We recognise that the main aim behind this amendment is to simplify the conditions for a group repair scheme. As previously indicated by my noble friend Earl Ferrers in his reply to earlier amendments, we have some sympathy with this aim of simplifying the conditions for a group repair scheme. However, as my noble friend said at the time we would prefer to leave the detailed rules and conditions to be prescribed in regulations rather than set out on the face of the Bill.
877 Beyond anything else, that would give us the chance to consult local authorities and others. However, we will certainly look at the possibility of reducing the minimum number of dwellings in a scheme when we come to make the regulations.
The amendment also provides for statutory consultation with local authority organisations on proposed regulations on group repair. We do not think that is necessary. It is our general practice to consult local authority associations on proposals affecting their members. We have, for example, recently established a new working group comprising local authority representatives to provide a forum for consultation on private sector housing renewal strategies. The purpose of this group is to assist us with the drafting of new guidance for local authorities which will be required as a consequence of the Bill. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Lord.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to go at least part of the way to meet the purpose of the amendment. I am happy that he is looking at the matter sympathetically and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 66 [Approval of scheme by Secretary of State]:
§
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 61:
Leave out Clause 66 and insert the following new Clause—
§ NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL ASSESSMENTS
§
("(1) Before proceeding with a group repair scheme, a local housing authority must carry out a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment to confirm that this is the most satisfactory course of action.
(2) The Secretary of State may specify matters to be taken into account by a local housing authority when carrying out a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may for the purpose of subsection (1) additionally specify different matters to be taken into account in a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment for different types of scheme and in different areas.
(4) Where a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment confirms that the carrying out of a group repair scheme is the most satisfactory course of action, the local authority may proceed to carry out the work specified in the scheme after obtaining the prior consent of persons participating in it and resolving to approve the scheme.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also concerns group repair schemes. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the needs for specific consent from the Secretary of State for group repair schemes and simplify the process by substituting a requirement that such schemes shall be subject to a cost benefit analysis specified in neighbourhood renewal assessment. Although there seems to be an element of jargon in the alternative approach, it seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut to have the Secretary of State give specific consent for a scheme of this kind. My amendment would simplify the process by taking away from the Secretary of State the burden of having to approve every scheme that might be put before him and suggesting an alternative way whereby such schemes should be approved. I beg to move.
878§ 9.15 p.m.
Lord LucasMy Lords, no one is more in favour of neighbourhood renewal assessments than the Government. After all, we developed them, we give guidance on them and we recommend them. But they belong only in particular circumstances; and that is large-scale renewal assessment. We are talking here of something which might consist only, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, hopes, of two homes.
As intimated by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in the Committee stage debate, we intend to review the current general consent with a view to ensuring that this covers as many schemes as possible so that authorities will need the Secretary of State's specific approval only in exceptional cases. We prefer to give authorities the flexibility they require in this way rather than impose something which would be an enormously outsized obligation on all schemes.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I am not sure that the Minister has met the point at all. He has said simply that he prefers an alterative approach. What we are seeking to do is to keep things simple. We have a Government who are committed to legislating less but a Government who are legislating more. What we want is not to have too heavy a Whitehall hand on the way in which local authorities operate. That is the purpose of the amendment. The Minister is not willing to meet it. However, he has heard the argument. I am not sure there is any point in pursuing it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 67 [Persons eligible to participate in group repair scheme]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 40, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) A person is eligible to participate in a group repair scheme if at the date of the approval of the scheme—
(2) A person eligible to participate in a group repair scheme may participate as an assisted participant—
This is subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (6) or by order under that subsection.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 76 and 77. These amendments will enable property owners who do not qualify for assistance under a group repair scheme to participate as unassisted 879 participants provided they can give possession of the part of the building to which the works relate or, if that part is occupied, they have the consent of the occupier.
§ As currently drafted, Clause 67 enables a person to qualify for assistance under a group repair scheme if, in the case of a dwelling, he gives an owner occupation certificate or a certificate of intended letting or, in the case of a house in multiple occupation, he gives a certificate of future occupation. However, a person who is unable to give such a certificate—for example, because he intends to sell his property in the near future—might still wish to participate in the scheme as an unassisted participant, but he would at present be precluded from doing so. In some cases this may prevent a viable scheme from being put together. These amendments will remove that restriction, allowing owners to join in and benefit from group repair works, even though they will have to meet the full costs themselves, provided they can give access to the property.
§ Amendment No. 64 makes it clear that in the case of houses in multiple occupation assistance will be available only if the property is occupied for residential purposes other than holiday occupation. Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 make changes to the definition in Clause 75 which are consequential. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert ("or
(c) who can subsequently reasonably be included in the scheme").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also concerned with group repair schemes. It seeks to allow persons who are unable to join a group repair scheme at the time it was approved still to be eligible to participate in the scheme provided their properties are close to the approved scheme buildings and provided the additional works can be completed without unreasonable disruption to the building contract. What we are seeking to do is to add flexibility. We are seeking to ensure that we deal with a difficulty that arises when adjacent properties in external disrepair have to be excluded from the building to be approved because the owners are unwilling or unable to participate. It is really to stop too rigid a system so that it is possible quickly to allow late joiners to participate in a scheme that has already been approved. I am sure that it meets the spirit of what the Government have in mind. I hope that in practice the amendment will help to achieve that aim. I beg to move.
Lord LucasMy Lords, this amendment would enable persons to join an approved group repair scheme without the need to obtain fresh scheme approval, if it were reasonable to include them. The aim is to reduce the administrative burden of seeking fresh approval where people change their minds and wish to take part in a scheme once it is under way. While I have some sympathy with this aim, there are obvious problems. For instance, the late inclusion of additional participants could upset the basis on which the original approval was 880 given. Had they been included originally, for example, the scheme may not have been one which would have been approved.
That said, we are prepared to look again at this issue to see if there is scope in certain circumstances for allowing additional persons to participate in an approved scheme which would not necessitate new scheme approval. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will appreciate that I am unable to give any assurances at this stage. However, on the basis that we are prepared to look again at this issue, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, on the basis that the Government are willing to look again at the issue, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate very much what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66:
Page 41, line I, after ("(b)") insert (""residential occupation" does not include occupation for a holiday, and").
Page 41, line 2, leave out ("are not eligible to") and insert ("may not").
Page 41, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A person eligible to participate in a group repair scheme who is unable to participate as an assisted participant may participate as an unassisted participant.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 72 [Condition as to payment of balance of cost on disposal]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 43, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75, 78 and 79. These amendments clarify the circumstances in which the conditions of participation in a group repair scheme cease to apply.
§ Under Clause 73, it is a condition of participation in a group repair scheme as an assisted participant that the property is occupied in accordance with the intention specified in the certificate of owner-occupation, certificate of intended letting or certificate of future occupation, as the case may be. If not, the owner may be required to pay the balance of the cost. Amendment No. 73 provides that this condition will cease to apply if the owner disposes of the property for reasons which are largely beyond his control, but will remain in force if the owner transfers the property to another member of their family or to certain other close associates. This is to deter people from avoiding the conditions of assistance by transferring the property between family members.
§ Amendment No. 75 makes clear that once the obligation to pay the balance of the cost of the works has arisen as a result of a breach of one of the grant conditions, and the amount demanded, if any, has been paid, the obligation is discharged. Amendments Nos. 67, 881 74, 78 and 79 clarify the meaning of the terms "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" for the purposes of the group repair provisions by referring to the equivalent provisions for renovation grants in Clauses 56 and 57. I beg to move.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, in so far as I can understand all the detailed implications of what the Minister has said, I believe that we are talking about safeguards lest people get grants in a way that is not quite proper. I believe that those safeguards are desirable. It is a reasonable proposal on the part of the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 43, line 11, leave out ("repayment") and insert ("payment").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 72. During Committee stage on 26th March, my noble friend Lord Ferrers promised the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we would look again at whether local authorities should be given greater discretion not to demand full payment of the balance of the cost of group repair works if the owner of a property disposes of it within the five-year protected period.
§ As my noble friend said, we recognise the concern among local authorities that the requirement to pay the balance of the cost might deter some people from joining a group repair scheme if they were uncertain as to whether they could meet the conditions. We want to encourage authorities to take a strategic approach to renewal. Amendments Nos. 68, 69, 71 and 72 will help to increase the flexibility of group repair by giving local authorities full discretion in determining the amount, if any, to be recovered from participants if the property is disposed of during the five-year protected period. We believe this goes further than Amendment No. 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which would require authorities to specify the sort of cases in which they would exercise their discretion.
§ Although we would still expect authorities to demand payment where the owner can clearly afford it, they will be able to waive or abate payments where payment in full would cause hardship. If those who are considering whether to join a group repair scheme are made aware of the local authority's policy on this at the outset, it should help to give them the assurance that they need to join in the scheme.
§ We have thought it right in making this change to tighten the payment condition where property is disposed of under a will or on intestacy. As currently worded, the requirement in Clause 72 to pay the balance of the cost continues in force if the property vests under a will or on intestacy to a person who lived with the deceased before his death. However, we see no reason why the condition should not also continue in force if the property vests in some other person. That person will clearly be inheriting a valuable asset and, if he 882 immediately sells it, should be in a position to pay the cost of the works. Amendment No. 72 achieves that. I beg to move.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding to the concerns which we raised in Committee. Indeed, in certain respects he has gone rather further than my amendment, Amendment No. 70, would have required. Detailed consideration of this point must await a further stage and will no doubt take place in another place. However, we on these Benches are happy with the government amendments and, when it comes to it, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 70.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 43, leave out lines 13 and 14.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72 with Amendment No. 68. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 with Amendment No. 67. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 with Amendment No. 62, and to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move all those amendments, Amendments Nos. 69 to 79, en bloc.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
§ The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell)My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 71.
Lord LucasMy Lords, I apologise for having attempted to move Amendment No. 70 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I am glad to have been prevented from doing that. Perhaps I may now beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 71 to 79 inclusively, to which I have already spoken.
The Deputy SpeakerMy Lords, if it is with the agreement of the House, we can take Amendments Nos. 71 to 79 together.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 43, leave out lines 16 to 28.
Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("intestacy)") to end of line 37.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 73 [Conditions as to occupation]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 44, line 18, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Any condition under this section shall cease to be in force with respect to any premises if there is a relevant disposal of the premises which is an exempt disposal other than a disposal within section 57(1)(a) (disposal to associates of person making disposal).").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
§ MEANING OF RELEVANT DISPOSAL AND EXEMPT DISPOSAL
§
(". Sections 56 and 57 (meaning of "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal") apply for the purposes of this Chapter.").
883
Insert the following new Clause—
§ PAYMENT OF BALANCE OF COST, &C: CESSATION OF CONDITIONS
§
(".—(1) If at any time while a condition of participation under section 72 or 73 remains in force—
that condition and any other conditions of participation shall cease to be in force with respect to the premises of that assisted participant.(2) An amount paid by a mortgagee under subsection (1)(b) above shall be treated as part of the sums secured by the mortgage and may be discharged accordingly.
(3) The purposes authorised for the application of capital money by—
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 75 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter II]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 79:
Page 44, line 33, column 2, leave out ("67") and insert ("67(2) and (6)").
Page 44, line 42, at end insert—
| ("eligible to participate | section 67(1)") |
§ Page 44, line 42, at end insert—
| ("exempt disposal | section (Meaning of relevant disposal and exempt disposal) (and section 57)") |
§ Page 45, line 11, at end insert—
| ("relevant disposal | section (Meaning of relevant disposal and exempt disposal)(and section 56)") |
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Clause 76 [Home repair assistance]:
§
Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 45, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert ("in any period of three years in respect of any one dwelling").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 81. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the limit on any one application, provided that the limit is not exceeded in any three-year period. The amendment was, I have to confess, tabled in Committee but not moved.
§ As it stands, the Bill proposes replacing the existing minor works assistance grant with a home repair grant. Like the minor works assistance grant, that will be available to owner-occupiers and private tenants who 884 fall into a priority group, are on low income benefit, or are elderly, or disabled or who require minor repairs or adaptations to enable them to remain in their own home. It will also, as I understand it, be available for insulation works, replacing lead pipes, and Radon-associated works.
§ The MWA grant—if I may use that acronym—is discretionary. It is proposed that the home repair grant will be too. Minor works assistance grant has been useful and much appreciated. The problem I put forward is that the level of grant does not cover certain works. The cost of work to enable people to stay put will depend upon the condition of the property, local costs in the area and the frailty, mobility or otherwise of the applicant.
§ Home improvement agencies have in the past expressed concern that the grant of about £1,000 was too low. The figure was set, I think, in April 1991 and has not been increased since. There is a proposal to increase that to £2,000 for any one year and £4,000 for any three years. That is welcome, but there are concerns about works which may exceed £2,000.
§ Furthermore, the proposal to limit the grant to payments of £2,000 in any one year may prevent it from being applied when works are required when they are most needed. In addition, assisting with community care, which is a question which has exercised your Lordships' House on many occasions, seems to be left out of the considerations in this new measure.
§ It is proposed that the HRG limit should be £4,000 in any three years, but if that is proposed it seems unreasonable that it should not be payable at the time it is most needed. That is, after all, the point of the exercise. The amendment would retain the overall limit of £4,000 in any three years but there would be no limit to the amount available in any one year. We believe that that is right. The removal of the one-year limit will, of course, remove an arbitrary time limit on the grant, and that could militate against advantageous effects. I hope that the Minister is seized of these problems, and, unlike on previous amendments, will be able to respond with due consideration. I beg to move.
Lord LucasMy Lords, the amendments address the limit for home repair assistance. Each application for home repair assistance will be subject to a proposed limit of £2,000. That is a limit per application, not per year. One can receive two grants in the same year; one can use up one's £4,000 limit in the same year. We would have concerns were authorities giving grants above this limit as a matter of routine, as we believe the limit accurately reflects the extent of works deemed suitable for this type of passported assistance.
There is also a further limit of £4,000 per dwelling over a three-year period. Should the full £4,000 of assistance be given in response to one application as would be possible under Amendment No. 80 and would be possible by having two coming together, no further assistance could be given until the three-year period had expired. In our opinion, this would leave the applicant vulnerable should the need for further works arise. We have set the structure of the grant so that such a situation is discouraged.
885 Turning toward Amendment No. 81, it is our belief that the flexibility already offered by this clause is the best option for this type of passported assistance. I do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to be tied to a particular cost index derived from the construction industry. The grant limits we propose are considered adequate for the works we intend to be assisted through home repair assistance. When we feel this is no longer the case, there is a provision within the Bill for the limits to be increased. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is a difficult problem and I am happy to say that he has gone a long way towards meeting our objections and difficulties. In those circumstances, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 81 not moved]:
§ Clause 77 [Entitlement to home repair assistance]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 45, line 44, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87.
§ I welcomed the opportunity to look further at the inclusion of disabled people within the eligibility criteria for home repair assistance given the considered views expressed by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, during Committee stage of the Bill.
§ As I sought to reassure noble Lords when this matter was raised in Committee, it has always been our intention that disabled people should be treated as a passported category in terms of eligibility for home repair assistance. It was our belief that the reference to "elderly and infirm" covered this intention. However, I accept the noble Lords' suggestion that it would be of benefit to clarify this for the purposes of the legislation. I believe that the amendments achieve that. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
Page 45, line 45, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
Page 46, line 16, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
Page 46, line 27, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
Page 46, line 29, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 78 [Assistance in respect of house-boats and mobile homes]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 46, line 39, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
886§ Clause 80 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter III]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Page 47, line 44, at end insert—
| ("disabled person | section (Disabled persons)(1) to (3)") |
§ Page 48, line 8, at end insert—
| ("secure tenant | section 99") |
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 83 [Appeals against deferred action notices]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 49, line 13, at end insert ("or section 85 of this Act").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was in Committee, my noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned the Government's firm intention to use the provision in Clause 85 of the Bill to give guidance to local authorities on the exercise of deferred action notices. This will complement the guidance on the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance that has been issued under Section 604A of the Housing Act 1985.
§ Where the grounds on which an appeal against a deferred action notice are that one of the other fitness enforcement options would be a more satisfactory course of action, it is only right that the county court should have regard not only to the guidance on those options but also to that on deferred action notices. Amendment No. 90 rectifies that omission. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 84 [Review of deferred action notices]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 49, line 43, leave out ("83") and insert ("83(1) to (5)").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 to 94. These amendments relate to the review of a deferred action notice. Their purpose is twofold: to make clear that where an appeal against a decision to renew a deferred action is brought the original notice remains operative until the appeal is decided; and, where a local authority decides to take alternative enforcement action, that the deferred action notice remains operative until that action is taken. These are straightforward drafting clarifications. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 92 to 94:
Page 49, line 45, at end insert—
("() If an appeal is brought against the decision to renew a deferred action notice, the notice remains operative until any decision on the appeal, or any further appeal, quashing or varying the notice.").
Page 50, line 1, leave out ("decide to").
Page 50, line 3, at end insert ("on the relevant notice, order or declaration becoming operative").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
887§ Clause 86 [Unfitness for human habitation, &c.: power to improve enforcement procedures]:
§
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 50, line 12, leave out ("The Secretary of State may by order provide") and insert ("A local housing authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State providing").
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 to 99. Clause 86 refers to the power to improve enforcement procedures. Instead of providing for the Secretary of State to be able by order to provide certain matters, I am seeking that a local housing authority shall have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance.
§ The reason that I propose the amendment is that it seems to me that in fact enforcement will be made more difficult rather than easier with the addition of another step in the process. I am puzzled as to what Clause 86 achieves other than imposing extra bureaucracy. It allows the Secretary of State—it does not require him—to make an order, to make certain provisions. If the clause is necessary, I should have expected to see that the Secretary of State "shall" make an order dealing with those matters. If it is not necessary, then I should prefer the clause not to be there.
§ My amendment seeks to give local authorities the choice as to whether or not they make use of the Secretary of State's scheme. When I moved an amendment directed at the same point in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he thought that a better approach would be to give local authorities flexibility as provided in Clause 86(6). But that is a limited provision and it provides that local housing authorities will not be precluded from taking immediate action where that is required, nor would anything require an authority to disclose information if that were against the public interest. In other words, I do not feel that that point in any way met the concern that I raised.
§ Having proposed that the matter shall be for guidance, I have chosen what seems to be appropriate wording to alter subsequent parts of the clause in the following amendments. I beg to move.
§ 9.45 p.m.
Lord LucasMy Lords, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has bounced us with a set of starred amendments. She has spoken eloquently to them and I am glad to say that, this time, we have guessed right as to what the amendments are about. The noble Baroness has made a most interesting point and it is one to which we would like to give further and serious consideration. We will return to the noble Baroness on the matter before the next stage. Therefore, in view of that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
§ Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I have no intention of bouncing anyone. I am glad that the ball has not bounced all the way out of the playing field, to use current jargon. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendments Nos. 96 to 99 not moved.]
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
§ POWER TO PRESCRIBE FORMS
§
(". The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the form of and the particulars to be contained in—
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment inserts a new clause which is similar in effect to that in Section 614 of the Housing Act 1985, which provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe forms. It is that provision under which prescribed forms regulations have been made for use by local authorities in respect of the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance. For those who like details, the statutory instrument in question is 1990 No. 1730.
§ Amendment No. 100 makes provision to do the same in respect of the new deferred action enforcement option and the charging for enforcement provision in Clause 87 of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 90 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter IV]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 53, leave out line 14.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. Both amendments, by removing four superfluous definition expressions from Clause 90, correct a drafting error in the Bill as introduced. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 53, leave out lines 18 to 20.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 91 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:
§ [Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
§ Clause 92 [Recovery of contributions]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this section—
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 105 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and Amendments Nos. 106 and 177 tabled in my name.
§ Clause 92 enables the Secretary of State to recover contributions paid to a local authority for grants in respect of which repayments have been made to the authority, or could have been recovered if reasonable steps had been taken. It is for the Secretary of State to 889 determine what steps it would have been reasonable for an authority to take. Amendment No. 104 provides similar powers for recovery of contributions made to authorities for group repair schemes.
§ Amendment No. 106 provides that, in determining whether an authority has taken reasonable steps to recover payments, the Secretary of State can take into account whether it has properly exercised its discretion not to demand payment or to demand payment of a lesser sum.
§ It is not the purpose of the provision to intervene in the lawful exercise by local authorities of their power of waiver. The provision is to ensure that where the discretion to waiver is exercised improperly, the cost of failing to recover the grant, or part of the grant, falls locally and not on the taxpayer at large.
§ It would appear from Amendment No. 105, brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is concern over the provision in Clause 92(3) which allows the Secretary of State to determine what reasonable steps should be taken to recover grant. We share the noble Lord's concerns over what might be considered as stark wording in the provision as drafted. It is due to the noble Lord drawing attention to the matter in this way that we have given consideration to how the intent of the provision might be clarified. That has led to the government amendments that I have described. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to resist moving his amendment when the time comes.
§ Amendment No. 177 relates to the transitional provisions which will be required under Clause 100 for the change from the current renovation grant system to the one contained in Part I of the Bill. Under Clause 100, certain applications for mandatory grant made after introduction of the Bill and before commencement of Part I will be treated as applications for discretionary grant under the current legislation. Amendment No. 177, combined with Clause 100(5), puts beyond doubt that we will have the power to make all the appropriate transitional changes to the current legislation. I beg to move.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing these amendments. I shall have to read rather carefully what he said, but he appears to have met our concerns raised in Amendment No. 105. I am grateful to the Government for having paid attention to the arguments we put forward in Committee. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I shall not move Amendment No. 105.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
("In determining whether the authority took reasonable steps, the Secretary of State may consider whether the authority properly exercised its discretion not to demand repayment of grant or to demand payment of a lesser sum.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110 previously. I beg to move en bloc.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 94 [Parsonages, charities, &c.]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 55, line 1, leave out ("to 28") and insert ("and 27").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 98, insert the following clause—
DISABLED PERSONS
(".—(1) For the purposes of this Part a person is disabled if—
(2) A person aged eighteen or over shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be disabled if—
(3) A person under the age of eighteen shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be disabled if—
(4) In this Part the "social services authority" means the council which is the local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 for the area in which the dwelling or building is situated.
(5) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be construed as affecting the persons who are to be regarded as disabled under section 29(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948 or section 17(11) of the Children Act 1989 (which define disabled persons for the purposes of the statutory provisions mentioned in subsections (2) to (4) above).").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 99 [Minor definitions: Part I]:
§
Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 56, line 34, at end insert—
(""introductory tenant" means a tenant under an introductory tenancy within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part V of the Housing Act 1996;").
Page 57, line 11, at end insert—
(""secure tenancy" and "secure tenant" have the same meaning as in Part IV of the Housing Act 1985:").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord LucasMy Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.