HL Deb 11 July 1996 vol 574 cc507-32

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 20 [Purchase grant where right to acquire exercised]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 221D: Page 13, line 18, leave out from ("be") to end of line 19 and insert("—

  1. (a) the aggregate of the discounts given in that year,
  2. (b) the replacement costs, and
  3. (c) the interest.
(2A) The rate of replacement costs per dwelling shall be set in each September for the following year by the Corporation and different provision may be made for different cases and in particular may be made in relation to different values, different areas, different descriptions of housing accommodation and different descriptions of registered social landlord and may be a composite sum allowing for actual items of expenditure. (2B) Before setting the replacement costs the Corporation shall consult such bodies appearing to it to be representative of registered social landlords as it considers appropriate. (2c) In this section—
  1. "replacement costs" means the estimated costs of disposal, including processing the person's claim, valuation, and legal expenses, and of acquisition of a replacement dwelling, including search, valuation, taxes and legal expenses and with an appropriate allowance for abortive disposals and acquisitions, at a rate as determined by the Corporation in accordance with subsection (2B), and
  2. "interest" means interest on the discount and replacement costs from the date of disposal of payment at the rate of interest on judgment debts in the High Court.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the subject of the amount of reimbursement to a registered social landlord. At the last stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said several times that the registered social landlords who sell under the new right to buy scheme will receive the market value of the property. I was not convincing as to my concerns that the nominal allowance written into the Bill would be sufficient to ensure that the market value and full reimbursement would be received. I hope that it may be worth returning to the matter for a second time.

A housing association will not be able to replace like with like. There will not be equivalent reinstatement. With the system as proposed, the proceeds of sale from the tenant will be the discount paid into a disposal proceeds fund and the housing authority will be able to buy a replacement dwelling from the fund. It will be able to deduct from the proceeds which go into the fund a nominal allowance but none of the costs will be paid by the Government, and that is the point.

At the last stage I mentioned certain costs. They include all the time involved in dealing with the procedure of selling; the overheads time (if I may so describe it) setting up the procedures; the staff time administering the scheme and dealing with particular sales, giving advice to sellers and purchasers and so on; and the usual costs of transferring property—conveyancing fees, valuation costs, disbursements such as stamp duty and land registry fees. With regard to the replacement dwelling, there will be the valuation and the fees incurred in acquiring the replacement dwelling; all the overheads associated with dealing with the replacement as part of the work of the housing association and the normal office costs; and repair costs which may be required to bring the replacement property up to a standard to match the one which has been bought. I hope that that gives some indication of the kind of costs that may be incurred.

The amendment sets out the matter at some length and as well as defining replacement costs adds the issue of interest. At the last stage I referred to it as being at a high rate, which shows just how little litigation I do because it reduced from the 15 per cent. I mentioned—that was the rate some years ago—to the more recent 8 per cent. interest on a judgment debt, which is the way of assessing interest. The point is that there should be a true reimbursement. The aggregate of the discounts will not be adequate in my view. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Baroness's amendment would mean that in addition to funding the tenant's discount, the corporation would fund further possible sales costs, such as she mentioned—staff time, valuation fees, legal fees and so forth.

It is right that, as in any business, the association's costs should be met from sales. That happens in the normal course of events. It is also the approach taken in the existing right to buy scheme for local authority housing. Indeed, in the voluntary purchase grant scheme for housing associations' existing stock, which started this year, the same principle is used. It has been accepted by landlords for the voluntary scheme and over 120 now take part.

Housing association landlords will be permitted to deduct the same fixed allowance as under the existing right to buy to cover their administrative costs for each sale. For houses, the allowance would be £619. For flats, it would be £1,391 in order to reflect the extra costs involved in giving estimates of service charges for repairs over the first five years.

In addition, landlords will be able to recover from their receipts the costs of valuation and survey fees. These are monitored and are subject to audit by the corporation. Typical costs, estimated by the Housing Corporation, are around 0.25 per cent. of value for valuation fees and about 0.5 per cent. for legal fees. On a £50,000 property this would be an additional £375, which I hope the noble Baroness will agree is not a vast sum. These costs would be deducted from the receipts from the sale before they went into the disposal proceeds fund. In total the Housing Corporation estimates that the costs might be in the region of £1,000 to £2,000.

I recognise the noble Baroness's concerns that this might reduce the sale proceeds which would be available for recycling into replacement properties. But overall, as a proportion of receipts, these costs are likely to be very small.

The noble Baroness was concerned that there would not be like for like because a dwelling would be sold for £60,000 and there would not be £60,000 with which to buy the next one. But one cannot regard this as an exact science. Costs and prices move up and down and interest rates move up and down. There will be gainers and losers on the side of the landlord and of the tenant. Inevitably, someone has to pay the costs. If the corporation were to pay those costs, it would increase its own costs and the result would be that it would be able to pay less for additional houses and additional grant.

The natural result would be to reduce the amount of money which would be available for the rest of the corporation's housing programme. We do not wish to make the scheme more expensive overall, or administratively cumbersome; nor, indeed, do we wish to reduce the amount of work which the housing associations can do.

I like to think that we have struck the right balance. There will be expenses which will have to be paid by the tenant in purchasing the property and expenses to be paid by the landlord in selling it. The concept of a ring-fenced replacement fund is a significant policy development. The corporation funds the tenant's discount through the grant. The associations' costs are met from receipts, as with the existing right to buy and the voluntary scheme.

I hope that the noble Baroness will feel on reconsideration that it is fair for each side to bear its proportion of costs. In the end the cost to the landlord is only a very small proportion of the sale proceeds. I believe that that is the best way to proceed.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, my concern is in relation to ensuring that stock is replaced. So those to whom I want to be fair are the prospective occupiers of replacement stock. Given that we are talking about what is in effect a compulsory purchase from a charity, it was worth raising the point again, particularly when one thinks that in the case of a compulsory purchase order from an individual the full costs would be reimbursed.

I shall feel a little better about this if, at any rate, the Government acknowledge—as I believe the noble Earl did in a way that his noble friend did not—that there are costs which have to be borne and that one cannot quite compare like with like. The exercise inevitably involves costs, and those costs will be lost from the totality of the value of the housing. Having said that and made my point in a way which is perhaps difficult to rebut because of the time in the debate at which I make it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Application or appropriation of disposal proceeds]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 221E: Page 16, line 2, after ("may") insert ("be applied in the acquisition of a replacement dwelling but otherwise may").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 221E I shall speak also to Amendment No. 221F. The first of these amendments in Clause 25 seeks to tempt the Government into giving a categorical assurance that the proceeds of sale following a sale under the right-to-buy scheme will be applied in acquiring a replacement dwelling. As Clause 25(1) stands, the application of the proceeds is, for such purposes and in such manner as the Corporation may determine".

I am not suggesting that the proceeds will be spent frivolously. But the direct connection between proceeds and the replacement dwelling is not present in the Bill as we should like to see it. The purpose of the second amendment, which inserts a time period, is to ensure that an association would have the right to replace the dwelling, putting a minimum time on the corporation's power to deal with the proceeds of the sale. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 221E and 221F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, concern the use of the disposal proceeds fund. In the debate on Amendment No. 221B I explained how the corporation will use its power to determine the use of this fund, the purpose of which will be to provide replacement properties for rent.

We wish to ensure that replacements meet local need, and that local authorities are involved in any decisions made. Associations will have to inform local authorities of sales and consult them when deciding on the type and location of any new dwelling and any nomination arrangements. I am sure that we all agree that local consultation is sensible. That will be set out in the corporation's determination to ensure that all landlords comply.

Purchase grants and social housing grant will be put into the disposal proceeds funds—that is public money. It is important that the corporation should have some control over its use and be able to give detailed guidance on the procedures to be followed when it is spent. The corporation intends to consult with local authorities and others before it issues the determination which will set all that out.

I am sure that the noble Baroness shares our concern that the fund is used wisely. But Amendment No. 221E would allow associations to replace properties without reference to any further guidance, and it also appears to dilute the principle of replacement by suggesting that other uses for the fund may be specified by the corporation.

Amendment No. 221F would give a time limit of five years within which sale receipts should be recycled. Under the current provisions of the Bill the time limit will be governed by a determination which will be issued by the corporation. We agree that there needs to be a time limit, but our current view is that it should be three years rather than five.

The corporation will consult before the determination is issued. We would prefer to have the flexibility to set a time limit after the consultation has taken place, and to have the discretion to review the limit if any problems arise in practice. We believe that that will be more satisfactory than having it fixed in primary legislation. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, agrees.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, it is helpful to have on the record the Government's view as to the time limit, though obviously it will be a matter for the corporation and not for the Government. I do not imagine that there is any way in which the Government can require that any time limit will apply other than through their good relations with the corporation. I am not receiving any feedback in that regard so I am probably right.

With regard to the purposes for which funds are applied, as Clause 25(1) stands the normal meaning of the words is that it is as wide as can be. The provision states, for such purposes and in such manner as the Corporation may determine". I accept that it is not intended to use the funds other than for the purposes that we have been debating. I see no firm reassurance of that and do not believe that I shall get any further in making this point tonight.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that I can say much more than I have already said. This will be a matter for consultation before determination is made and the determination will obviously reflect the consultation.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 221F not moved.]

Clause 30 [General power to obtain information]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 222: Page 19, line 8, at end insert— ("( ) No notice shall be served on a person within paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (2) unless—

  1. (a) a notice has been served on the registered social landlord and has not been complied with, or
  2. (b) the Corporation believes that the information or documents in question are not in the possession of the landlord.
( ) Nothing in this section authorises the Corporation to require—
  1. (a) the disclosure of anything which a person would be entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court, or
  2. (b) the disclosure by a banker of anything in breach of any duty of confidentiality owed by him to a person other than a registered social landlord or a subsidiary or associate of a registered social landlord.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 222 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 223. During Committee stage Clause 30 attracted much comment on the powers it gave to the regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, expressed his concern, as did my noble friend Lord Boardman. Officials discussed this clause with representatives of the British Bankers' Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the amendments reflect those discussions.

This is not a power we expect the corporation to have to use often. But should it meet resistance it needs to be able to take effective action. In the first instance it should pursue the registered social landlord. A notice requiring another person or organisation to provide information should only be issued where either a registered social landlord has failed to comply with a notice or the corporation has strong reasons to believe the information or documents in question are not in the possession of the landlord. This amendment makes that procedure explicit.

There was concern about the protection provided in the clause for the solicitors and bankers of a registered social landlord. The purpose of this power is to enable the corporation to obtain information about registered social landlords, not people or bodies that may be involved with them. To avoid any doubt this amendment clarifies the information that can be requested from the solicitor or banker of a registered social landlord.

We remain strongly of the view that as the protector of significant public funding the corporation must have adequate powers to obtain relevant information. The amendment proposed will ensure the corporation does not abuse its powers to obtain information from other bodies. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment, which meets the concerns which I and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, expressed at Committee stage. It has the approval of the British Bankers' Association, as the noble Lord pointed out. I am grateful that the Government have paid attention to concerns which, at a late stage of the Bill, were raised by the Opposition and one of the noble Lord's noble friends.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has yet again contributed a valuable addition to the wording of this Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 223: Page 19, line 15, leave out subsection (5).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Insolvency, &c. of registered social landlord: scheme of provisions]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 224: Page 23, line 35, leave out ("(section 47)") and insert ("(sections 47 and 48)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 226 to 233. Amendment No. 224 tidies up the scheme of provisions in Clause 3 by making reference to Clause 48, which at present is not mentioned.

Amendments Nos. 226 to 232 tidy up the corporation's responsibilities to serve copies of its proposals on the Charity Commissioners, the Registry of Friendly Societies and the companies registrar. Amendment No. 233 tidies up the cross-reference to Clause 44 contained in Clause 45. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Period of moratorium]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 225: Page 26, line 27, at end insert— ("Before making any such direction the Corporation shall consult the person who took the step which brought about the moratorium.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 234 and 235. Clause 43(4) gives the corporation the power to call off a moratorium if it believes that the proper management of the landlord's land can be secured without making a proposal. The most likely instance would be where the financial difficulty that led the lender to enforce his security (and thereby trigger the moratorium in the first place) had been resolved, so that the future ownership and management of the landlord's housing was no longer in doubt. This is a matter of judgment, and we think it right that the corporation should be required to consult the lender before using this power. Amendment No. 225 achieves this.

Amendment No. 234 gives effect to opposition Amendment No. 168 tabled at Committee stage, which would require the manager, so far as practicable, to consult and inform the tenants of the landlord in connection with any exercise of his powers which is likely to affect them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for proposing this most sensible measure.

Amendment No. 235 extends the right to appeal against the actions of a manager contained in Clause 50(1) to include unsecured as well as secured creditors. This amendment acknowledges the additional protection afforded to unsecured creditors through amendment in Committee which is contained in Clause 44(5). In order for that protection to be effective, unsecured creditors must be able to appeal against the actions of a manager whom they believe is not affording them the protection contained in the corporation proposal. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his acknowledgement.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 44 [Proposals as to ownership and management of landlord's land]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 226: Page 27, line 32, at end insert (", and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 226 to 233 inclusive, with Amendment No. 224; to Amendment No. 234 with Amendment No. 225 and to Amendment No. 235 with Amendment No. 225. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 227: Page 27, line 34, leave out from ("land,") to end of line 37.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 [Effect of agreed proposals]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 228 to 233: Page 28, line 7, after ("1985") insert ("(including a company which is a registered charity)"). Page 28, line 17, after ("society") insert ("or registered charity"). Page 28, line 17, leave out ("or a company registered under the Companies Act 1985"). Page 28, line 19, after first ("registrar") insert ("or the Charity Commissioners"). Page 28, line 19, leave out ("or the companies registrar"). Page 28, line 25, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(7)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 47 [Powers of the manager]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 234: Page 29, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) The manager shall, so far as practicable, consult the landlord's tenants about any exercise of his powers which is likely to affect them and inform them about any such exercise of his powers.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 [Application to court to secure compliance with agreed proposals]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 235: Page 30, line 34, leave out ("secured").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Social rented sector: minor amendments]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 235A: Page 144, line 2, at end, insert— ("Local Authorities (Goods and See-vices) Act 1970 In relation to section 5 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, the description of 'public body' for the purposes of the Act shall be extended to include a registered social landlord as defined in the Housing Act 1996.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a local authority can enter into an agreement with a local housing company or any other registered social landlord, as defined in the Housing Act 1996, to supply goods and services.

The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 provides that a local authority may enter into an agreement to provide goods and services to any "public bodies" within the meaning of the Act or by order made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.

The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) (Public Bodies) Order 1975, made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, defined that a housing association registered under Part I of the Housing Act 1974 shall be a public body for the purposes of that Act. Therefore, the Secretary of State shall order that a registered social landlord within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1996 shall also be treated as a "public body" for the purposes of the Act.

I am moving a minor amendment, but I hope very much that the noble Lord who is to respond will give us some comfort on the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, we fully support the spirit behind this amendment but we do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is necessary to achieve the effect.

The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, refers, provides for the Secretary of State to designate by statutory instrument those organisations which are to be considered as "public bodies", and therefore able to trade with local authorities. Local authorities are able to engage in trade with registered housing associations because an order has been made designating this.

We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it would be eminently sensible for local authorities to be able to trade with registered social landlords, and we shall be actively pursuing this. With the introduction of a wider range of social landlords, as part of this Bill, we shall, of course, need to consider precisely how this should apply.

The arrangements for adding to the list of public bodies under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 have worked well in the past. I am sure that the noble Lord accepts that what is important is that local authorities should be able to trade with registered social landlords, not the mechanisms to achieve this. Given that we already have the powers under the 1970 Act I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his response. The Government certainly have the powers and I am grateful to him for his appreciation of the problem. I look forward to the appropriate orders being produced in the course of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 236: Page 146, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert— "Realisation of value of Corporation's loans portfolio. 76A.—(1) The Corporation may, and if so directed by the Secretary of State (under section 76) shall, enter into arrangements of a description approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of realising the value of the whole or part of its loans portfolio.

(2) The arrangements may provide for—

  1. (a) the transfer of any estate or interest of the Corporation, or
  2. (b) the creation or disposal of economic interests not involving a transfer of an estate or interest,
and may extend to such incidental or ancillary matters as the Corporation or the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (3) In this section the Corporation's "loans portfolio" means the Corporation's rights and obligations in relation to any loans or related securities. (4) Nothing in the terms of any loan or related transaction entered into by the Corporation shall be construed as impliedly prohibiting or restricting the Corporation from dealing with its loans portfolio in accordance with arrangements under this section.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 237. The first of the amendments affects the corporations in England and Wales and the second amendment introduces similar provisions for Scottish Homes.

Housing associations fund development primarily from a mixture of loan and government grant. For the last eight years they have raised that loan finance on the market. Prior to that, housing associations borrowed money from the housing corporations who in turn borrowed money from the National Loans Fund. The loans were typically for 60 years; so there is a considerable debt outstanding. Its overall face value is about a billion pounds.

The Government have announced that they plan to re-finance this public sector borrowing. We are currently exploring the prospects for selling the loan portfolio. N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd were recently appointed as advisers on this proposal and Ministers expect to take a decision on whether to sell, and, if so, how that sale might best be effected, in two to three months' time.

The existing provisions in the Bill place responsibility on the Secretary of State for directing the corporations to sell. This makes it clear where responsibility lies. It is particularly appropriate because, in effect, the corporations are acting as government's agent in handling these loans.

The revised provisions in these amendments reflect two factors which have become clear in the work already undertaken by the corporations to examine and describe their portfolios and in the preliminary inquiries by Rothschild. The first is that there is, as yet, no certainty about the best ways in which the latent value of these loans could be realised. It will not be possible to take a view on the best approach for several months. It is quite possible that some loans will not be suitable for sale and that there may need to be intermediate activity prior to sale in order to produce the most cost-effective solution. The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Amendment No. 236 ensure that the corporations should be able to take such steps short of outright sale as are sensible to achieve this. Any decision will be taken in the light of the best interests of the taxpayer.

The second point deals with a potential problem. A standard form of charge used by the corporation in the 1970s had a rather curious provision to the effect that, the Corporation may at any time after its power of sale has become exercisable transfer the benefit of this legal charge to any person".

It might be argued that the corporation could not transfer the charge prior to the power of sale becoming exercisable. Leading counsel has advised the Housing Corporation that this is not so and there should be no inhibition on sale. But any prospectus would have to draw attention to this scintilla of doubt. This is not satisfactory from the point of view of either the vendor or the purchaser who may be uncertain as to their position. It will certainly not be satisfactory if the taxpayer finds that the value of the loans cannot be realised because of this technicality. Therefore subsection (4) puts the position beyond doubt.

None of this will disadvantage the borrower, or the tenant, as the terms of any loans will apply whoever holds them.

Amendment No. 237 has precisely the same effect in respect of Scottish Homes, reflecting the different wording of the Scottish legislation. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take one factor into consideration. Can I ask him to look at the penultimate clause in the Bill at page 124. I think he will see that the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 relating to registered housing associations do not extend to Scotland. While it is important that this amendment be considered, perhaps between now and Third Reading he will look at the extant clause.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, perhaps I can remind the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that we have to deal with the government amendment as it stands at the moment. It introduces a very interesting concept. I understand that Rothschild is looking into the whole question of disposing of the corporation's portfolio. The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quite properly described, is to allow the Government, plus Rothschild, to get on with the business. But it seems odd that at Report stage in your Lordships' House, the Bill having gone through another place and having gone through Committee in our House, the Government appear to be introducing an amendment which allows Rothschild—acting for the Government—to enter into any arrangements of any description for the purpose of realising the value of whole or part of the loans portfolio of the corporation.

I can only say that, faced with this amendment at this time of night, I do not wish to argue the point. I would have wished to argue the point in Committee had the Government produced the amendment at that time. In my experience as a banker, there is something pretty odd about the Government producing an amendment at this time of night at this stage in order to shuffle off the loan portfolio of the corporation.

It is not only the loan portfolio. The amendment provides for, the transfer of any estate or interest of the Corporation", of which there are many or the creation or disposal of economic interests not involving a transfer of an estate or interest", so any guarantee, or whatever and may extend to such incidental or ancillary matters as the Corporation or the Secretary of State considers appropriate". Although I am anxious to get on with the business this evening, I find the amendment rather difficult to swallow.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, obviously, I do not want to try and persuade the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to accept an amendment which is defective, but I hope that that is not what we have here. I hope that the limitations of subsection (1), which states the purpose for which these powers are required, effectively limit the way in which the powers that appear in subsection (2) are used. Subsection (1) states: for the purpose of realising the value of the whole or part of its loans portfolio". After that restriction is then drawn widely to enable a rather diverse, and perhaps in some ways strange, portfolio to be dealt with effectively. As a point of detail, Rothschild will not enter into the arrangements. It will simply advise on them.

In general all I can offer as a comment is better late than never. It is best that we have the powers set out in this Bill which enable the loan portfolio to be dealt with properly. I apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that we did not pick up these difficulties earlier and give him time to test me on them at Committee stage. But I believe we have got them right now.

Turning to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Balfour, I am advised that it is "an elephant" or perhaps that should have been "irrelevant". However, given my noble friend's reputation as someone who can pick up mistakes made by the Government, I shall certainly look at the point in detail and write to him.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I know that we are on Report, but can he explain the intention behind the corporation selling off its loans portfolio? I understand that the corporation has loans. I understand that the corporation does not wish to be obligated to private interests. But what is the intention behind this provision? I have not quite understood it from what the noble Lord said.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I may be misunderstanding the purpose of the transaction, but it seems to me that £1 billion has effectively been lent by the Government and that the Government would prefer it to be lent by commercial sources and to be able to remove that sum from the public sector borrowing requirement.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 237: Page 146, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 147 and insert— ("9. After section 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (general functions of Scottish Homes) insert— Sale of Scottish Homes' loans portfolio. 2A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, Scottish Homes may enter into arrangements of a description approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of realising the value of the whole or part of its loans portfolio. (2) Without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions under section 2(10) above, the Secretary of State may direct Scottish Homes to enter into arrangements under this section and it shall be the duty of Scottish Homes to comply with any such direction. (3) The arrangements may provide for—

  1. (a) the transfer of any estate or interest of Scottish Homes, or
  2. (b) the creation or disposal of economic interests not involving a transfer of an estate or interest,
and may extend to such incidental or ancillary matters as Scottish Homes or the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) In this section, Scottish Homes' "loans portfolio" means Scottish Homes' rights and obligations in relation to any loans or related securities. (5) Nothing in the terms of any loan or related transaction entered into by Scottish Homes shall be construed as impliedly prohibiting or restricting it from dealing with its loans portfolio in accordance with arrangements under this section. (6) A direction given under subsection (2) above may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction given by the Secretary of State.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 63 [Minor definitions: Part I]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 237A: Page 35, line 34, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("specified").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a very small drafting error. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Making and approval of registration schemes]:

[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 238A: Page 37, line 29, at end insert— ((3A) A registration scheme shall not apply to—

  1. (a) a house which is occupied by persons who form only two households;
  2. (b) a house which is occupied by no more than four persons who form more than two households;
  3. (c) a house which is occupied by no more than four persons in addition to the person managing or having control of the house (if any) and any member of his household;
  4. (d) a house of such description as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(3B) An order made under subsection (3A)(d)—
  1. (a) may make different provision with respect to different descriptions of case; and
  2. (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, because we are running slightly later than anticipated and because my noble friend Lord Lytton has a very early engagement tomorrow morning, he has unfortunately had to leave the House and it now falls to me to move the amendment. I do so with considerable trepidation; first, because I lack my noble friend's expertise in property matters and, secondly, because I came to the issue very late having only recently been alerted to the dire consequences for both landlords and tenants if the Bill remains unamended.

It is probably right that I should now make it clear that I have absolutely no interest to declare. I am a landlord in a small way, but I have never been, and am never likely to become, a landlord of any property which might fall within the HMO designation.

The wording of the amendment is pretty self-explanatory. Provisions almost identical to those in this amendment were in the Bill when it received its Second Reading in another place. However, as a result of Opposition fears, chiefly concerning fire risks—mistaken fears, it is now evident—the clause was removed on the Bill's passage through the other place. When the Bill was still in the Commons almost everyone accepted the claim that fire risks in HMOs were a staggering 28 times higher than for other accommodation. By the time the Bill reached this House, the Government had realised that 28 was a ridiculous multiplier and they produced a guesstimate—it was a guesstimate rather than an estimate—that the real multiplier was about 10. However, even that is much too high. Using methodology suggested by the Office for National Statistics—you cannot find a more respectable source than that—the true multiplier works out at 1.8—less than one-fifteenth of the original claim and less than one-fifth of the amended government claim.

Obviously, that has an enormous bearing on the degree of expensive safeguards and restrictions needed. It is almost certain that if the Minister in the other place had been aware of the true multiplier of the fire risk at the time he would never have agreed to Opposition calls to withdraw exemption for smaller HMOs. This amendment, which, to conform to the Government's wishes, has been slightly fine-tuned in comparison with the clause in the original Bill, would ensure that the Bill accords with the Government's original intentions.

Let us not forget that if they are over-regulated the smaller dwellings that are used as HMOs will be swamped by regulations intended for genuine risk situations. A poll, admittedly a straw poll, in London indicates that 80 per cent. of landlords would simply give up. That would be sad for the landlords and an absolute tragedy for the tenants, given the overall shortage of such housing.

For all the bad publicity that HMOs have received from certain vested interests, they form a vital part of the housing provision, not least in relation to the Government's housing benefit calculations and also in relation to students and other young people. A number of HMOs are considered unsafe because of overcrowding or on environmental health grounds as opposed to fire risks, but those matters are actionable under existing powers. There is no need for a registration scheme to deal with these particular abuses. Therefore, it is important that relatively limited categories where problems are inherently less likely should be excluded, leaving the real risk categories to be dealt with by means of registration. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said, the Government did an about-face on this aspect of the Bill in another place—and quite rightly, too. It became quite clear just how complicated and difficult an area this was. We decided that we wanted these powers in secondary legislation in order to use them flexibly. We wanted to give time and consideration to how to phrase them and update them when, for example, the results of our proposed research into fire risks in HMOs became available.

Therefore, we have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are trying to achieve by this amendment, but we have no wish to see any of this on the face of the Bill. We are not attracted by the rather hybrid scheme—part regulation and part Bill—that is proposed. The problems are not restricted to the question of fire risks in HMOs. There are problems with drafting exclusions to cover self-contained flats, the majority of which are owner-occupied, and a number of other areas. Although the Government set out down this road originally, we are convinced that our conversion in another place was the right one. We have no attraction to this amendment whatsoever.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sorry to hear it. As my noble friend Lord Lytton will wish to study what has been said—whether he decides to do something at Third Reading is a matter for him—for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 not moved.]

Clause 66 [Registration schemes: control provisions]:

[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 242: Page 39, line 38, leave out ("such") and insert ("reasonable").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am caught slightly off guard. Although my noble friend Lord Lytton told me that he would be going I did not have the same warning from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I have not had time to do the necessary research into this matter, except to make the general observation that this country is over-litigious as it is and is getting worse. We are becoming like Californians. Surely, it is desirable to eliminate the prospect of litigation wherever we can. Referring to the second amendment in this group, I would have thought that the words "to impose reasonable conditions … during the period of registration"—full stop—would be preferable from the point of view of deregulation, which the Government favour quite rightly. The words

"impose such conditions … as the authority may determine"

would leave an enormous area of uncertainty in the minds of landlords and prospective landlords. I look forward with interest to the reply of the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I believe that I am able to give the noble Lord some comfort in this matter. The provisions in the Bill allow local authorities to have discretion about what standard of management is appropriate in each case so that they can deal with different types and sizes of housing management organisations. We believe that that is right. But they must act reasonably and have regard to any codes of practice or management codes issued by the Department of the Environment. Those codes will be usable as evidence if the landlord should appeal to the county court, as undoubtedly he will if he feels that the conditions imposed on him are unreasonable. Although the provision in the Bill seems wide, with the addition of guidance and management codes I believe it will be clear to any individual landlord how he ought to be treated. In those circumstances, I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord is unnecessary.

Lord Monson

My Lords, when the Minister said that he would have some words of comfort I thought that it was the formula which one tends to hear so often. However, I was comforted by his actual message. He pointed out that there will be a requirement to be reasonable and the codes of practice must be adhered to. That will count if the matter should go as far as the county court. Therefore, I derive comfort from what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]

Clause 67 [Registration schemes: special control provisions]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 244: Page 41, line 33, at end insert— ("(1A) Special control provisions shall not apply to a house in multiple occupation which is—

  1. (a) a registered care home as defined by the Registered Homes Act 1984;
  2. (b) owned by a registered social landlord;
  3. (c) owned by a landlord who owns land disposed in accordance with section 32 of the Housing Act 1985.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to exclude from the Bill's special control provisions for HMOs certain types of properties which should not be caught by them. They include residential care homes for the elderly and hostels owned by registered social landlords. Paragraph (c) covers social landlords of former local authority housing not registered by the Housing Corporation. I am sure that the Minister has taken those points and I hope for a favourable response. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, special control provisions involve very significant powers available to local authorities and we expect them to be exercised with due consideration and necessary restraint. We have therefore already provided for a number of safeguards against the misuse of these powers. Every local authority which wishes to adopt a registration scheme with special control provisions will need the special approval of the Secretary of State for that scheme. They will have to make out a strong case for their adoption.

I can offer the noble Lord some worthwhile assurances. Following enactment of the Bill we will be consulting widely about the model registration schemes which the Secretary of State intends to make. We have already said that, subject to the consultation, we intend to exclude from the model schemes properties owned or controlled by responsible public-sector or social landlords, such as universities and housing associations. We are also planning to exclude from the model schemes properties which come under some other regulatory regime, such as registered care homes.

As the categories referred to in the amendment will almost certainly be excluded from all model registration schemes, we believe that it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State will agree to their inclusion in a registration scheme containing special control provisions. I hope that that will give the noble Lord the comfort he requires to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That was the assurance for which I was looking. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 244A and 244B not moved.]

Clause 73 [Duty to keep premises fit for number of occupants]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 245: Page 48, leave out lines 22 to 25.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, all four amendments in the group deal with the duty of care but they involve separate points. I do not know whether it would be best to deal with them together or separately—

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the grouping has been agreed and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can deal with all the amendments together.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. There are three reasons for trying to omit the civil duty of care. First, there appear to be no transitional provisions should the regulations change. An owner may have just completed a programme of works in order to comply with the duty. However, if the rules change he will immediately be in default again. If conditions have become too difficult he will simply take his house out of the multiple occupation sector.

Secondly, landlords are not in much control over what tenants do to the premises once they have handed over possession. It is a common experience that tenants may deliberately remove fire precautions, such as door closers. A landlord does not have the kind of controls available to a hotel or factory manager. Thirdly, in view of current conditions and costs, civil litigation is an extremely inefficient way of resolving disputes for most people. A tenant who is not eligible for legal aid is unlikely to be able to contemplate legal action. Equally, a landlord facing a suit from a legally-aided tenant will be in a very difficult position. Even if he has a good defence, he will not get back his costs. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish recently reminded us, the litigious tenancy should not be encouraged.

I share the concern of many in this House about the degree of improvement which is needed in the private rented sector. However, the people who will be deterred by the provisions of this clause as it stands will not be the cowboy operators on whom we all wish to clamp down. Instead, it will be the responsible landlord, honestly trying to provide good quality accommodation, and honestly trying to comply with the law, who will be worried. Such landlords may well decide to invest elsewhere, in which case there will be no accommodation available where it is needed.

Landlords already have a general duty of care under common law, which will remain operative. My amendment would only remove what seems to me almost an invitation to vexatious actions which could affect all sorts of landlords, including housing associations and local authorities, even owners of shared freeholds.

Amendment No. 246 allows for another category of difficulty which the duty of care may create. The buildings to which the duty will apply are extremely varied, and many are old. It is likely that there will be cases where something about the building prevents it from being made to comply fully with the regulations. There have been cases where one part of the local authority has insisted on work being done to a building, and another part of that same local authority has prohibited that work from being done because the building is a listed building which should not be altered.

There will also be occasions when the accommodation is being made available on a temporary basis, and the expense of full compliance would be disproportionate, or the owner might be intending to demolish the building in the near future.

There are also the problems that arise when the tenant will not allow builders in. I have experienced that, not with an HMO, but with a single tenant property where the tenant would not allow builders in to do essential work.

If reasonable defences are not available for special circumstances the owner will be compelled to withdraw accommodation rather than risk prosecution or lawsuits. As with the previous amendment, I ask the House to consider that this duty be laid on the full range of HMOs, not just on the rough end of the market. It would result in the withdrawal of accommodation, for example, for students in areas where accommodation is most needed.

Amendment No. 247 is intended to avoid possible confusion between the requirements imposed by the local authority under Section 347 and the requirements of the duty of care. Under Section 347 local authorities may require works to be carried out to a house in multiple occupation before they will include it in their registration scheme. A person might reasonable suppose that once he has carried out works which the local authority had asked for, the house is then up to any standard which he was legally obliged to meet. My amendment would ensure that that would be the case. It is extremely confusing for owners and their advisers if there is duplication and overlap between different sets of regulations.

Amendment No. 248 addresses the situation of landlords on whom the local authority has no plans for enforcement action, but who still have to comply with the duty of care. Responsible landlords will be able to apply for their certificate of compliance, and after carrying out any works which the local authority requires, will know that they have complied. I am aware of one council which has much experience in HMO enforcement, Leeds City Council. That council is already looking at a voluntary system of accreditation for landlords. The amendment I have proposed would put this on a statutory footing. If landlords apply it would save time and effort on the part of the local authorities in having to seek out these properties.

The amendment also provides for disputes to be referred to the department, as is possible for building regulations. I believe there needs to be a review system of some national standing to ensure consistent and fair interpretation of the code by different authorities across the country. With such a system in place there would probably not be many appeals.

Finally, there is provision for the certificate to last 10 years. Clause 71 provides for a five-year interval between Section 352 notices. It is too short a minimum interval between compulsory works in a well-run property. Five years comes round very quickly. Therefore, I propose an exemption for 10 years.

Naturally, the local authority would retain the right to take action if conditions change or deteriorate. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having jumped the gun in my strictures about our increasingly litigious society. I had Amendment No. 245 in mind and I spoke to it a little too early. But it does no harm to repeat those strictures since it is such a growing evil in our society. But naturally, I agree with everything which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said in favour of Amendment No. 245.

I also agree with him about Amendment No. 246, but particularly in respect of property which is let on a temporary basis, possibly preparatory to sale or redevelopment. It seems folly in the extreme to compel people to spend fantastic amounts of money on a building which they will be letting for only a few months.

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will confirm figures which I have seen which suggest that the average cost of complying with all the regulations which are envisaged and proposed will be £14,000 per HMO and, as 80 per cent. will be involved, that will mean a total expenditure of something like £2.86 billion. That is a horrifying amount of money and I shall be interested to see whether the Minister will come forth with figures to confirm or refute that.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the concerns of landlords which my noble friend has eloquently described. I can understand that many landlords are concerned that local authorities will act unreasonably in demanding excessive standards and requirements. I think however that those fears are ungrounded because there are various important safeguards already contained in these provisions.

Amendment No. 245 would remove the ability for any tenants, or others who suffer loss or injury because of a breach of the duty of care under the clause, to sue for damages. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that where a landlord has failed to provide proper facilities or adequate fire precautions, it is correct that tenants or others affected should be able to obtain redress. If the tenant is responsible for lack of fire precautions, he will get nowhere in court.

Amendment No. 246 proposes that various factors should be taken into account when deciding that a breach of the duty has occurred—such as the age and location of the property. It also provides that there should be some consideration of whether the amount of works a local authority may wish to see carried out to a property are in proportion to the risks to the tenants. Either party could argue that because of these factors the code of practice which the Government propose to make setting out a new national standard for HMOs, was not appropriate and the standards demanded were not reasonably practical to achieve and it would be for the court to reach a judgment on the facts of each case.

I fear that the proposal outlined in Amendment No. 248 would have some very undesirable side effects. Requiring local authorities to react to every request from landlords to inspect and certify their properties would be unrealistic.

Local authorities would find their time taken up inspecting and certifying HMOs managed by responsible landlords and kept in a reasonable condition, when they should be focusing their expertise on those properties most at risk where the worst conditions can be found. We have for some time been encouraging local authorities to adopt a risk assessment approach in dealing with HMO problems. Many have already adopted such methods. Although well intentioned, the proposal could throw those strategies into disarray.

Finally, Amendment No. 247 would exempt all premises which have been registered by a local authority operating a scheme with control provisions, from the duty of care under the clause. I accept that when a property has been registered by the local authority it will be of an appropriate standard, and the manager is unlikely to be in breach of the duty of care. There is no guarantee, however, that these standards will be maintained throughout the intervening five-year period.

The duty of care requires the landlord to take only reasonably practicable steps. If the code changes, no doubt it will say something about transitional provisions, depending on the circumstances. Often, it will not be appropriate to upgrade to the latest standard if reasonably modern standards have been complied with. Compliance with works required in a Section 352 notice by the local authority would be prima facie evidence that the duty of care had been complied with in respect of that matter. I hope that what I have said contains sufficient comfort for my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that explanation. He speaks with utter reasonableness, as if local authorities will be reasonable. Indeed, I hope they will. However, there have been cases where local authorities have insisted upon unreasonable provisions and even ones which, as I mentioned, contradicted one another and left people not knowing what to do. However, provided that they act on that, and take a reasonable attitude, all will be well. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 246 to 248 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 249: After Clause 75, insert the following new clause— THE MANAGEMENT CODE (".In section 369 of the Housing Act 1985, in subsection (2), after "gardens in common use" insert— ("gas-fired and solid fuel appliances".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is very simple: it is to bring the checking of gas-fired and solid fuel heating appliances within the remit of the management code contained in the Housing Act 1985. I am sure that the Minister has studied the matter with great care and that he will be able to give me some reassurance in that respect. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I moved an amendment at the last stage with regard to fuel appliances. At that time, the Minister indicated that the Health and Safety Commission was bringing forward an urgent amendment and that it intended to issue a consultative document this month with a view to introducing regulations by the end of October. When replying, I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any current news with regard to the commission's consultation.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am not certain whether that information from my advisers will reach me in time for me to forward it to the noble Baroness now. Nonetheless, I shall speak fairly fast. I have considerable sympathy with the concern expressed by the noble Lord about the dangers of carbon monoxide and his wish that there should be clear and effective enforcement of maintenance standards in houses of multiple occupation to minimise those risks.

In relation to the specific amendment proposed, I should tell the noble Lord that we feel it to be unnecessary. It seeks to amend Section 369 of the Housing Act 1985, which provides for the Secretary of State to issue a code of management practice for HMOs. The section as presently drafted gives specific examples such as water supply, drainage and fire precautions to which any code may apply, and I agree that there may be a slight presentational advantage for it to refer also to gas and solid fuel appliances. However, I should point out that the management code currently in force does contain a section dealing with gas and electricity appliances, and space and water heating installations. Therefore I do not see any real advantage to be gained in amending the section in the way proposed, especially as there is no reference in the amendment to electric or oil-fired appliances.

My understanding is that the current arrangements work satisfactorily. Local authority enforcement officers have the lead responsibility in enforcing standards in HMOs, but, if they wish to invoke the additional powers under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations, they can call in inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive.

I am sorry to have to confess that I do not have with me details of the dates as regards the Health and Safety Commission's consultations on changes in the gas safety regulations. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness on the matter. It may also be helpful if I offer to write to my honourable friend Sir Paul Beresford, the Minister responsible for the work of the HSE, and invite his views about the problems which have been raised in this and previous debates both by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. When that information is available, either I or my honourable friend will write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I hope that that response will be sufficient to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, well, it is not very good. We have had this discussion both in Committee and, indeed, now on Report. Nevertheless, I accept that the Minister is showing us a certain amount of goodwill. If the machine can produce the relevant information at the relevant time before the Bill leaves this House, then I think I will be happy—as I hope the noble Baroness will be—with the Minister's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 250: After Clause 76, insert the following new clause— MAKING OF CONTROL ORDER (". In section 379 of the Housing Act 1985 (making of control order), after subsection (4) insert— (5) Within eight weeks of the date of service of the control order, the local housing authority shall serve on the dispossessed proprietor notice of their intention to—

  1. (a) revoke the control order; or
  2. (b) retain the control order; or
  3. (c) make a compulsory purchase order.
(6) Where the authority have exercised their powers under subsection (5) above, the dispossessed proprietor may appeal within twenty-one days to the county court on the grounds that the decision of the local authority was unreasonable.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment that I propose is to extend from four to eight weeks the period within which, after making a control order under Section 379 of the Housing Act 1985, a local housing authority must decide on the course of action it intends to take to follow up the making of the control order. A similar proposal was moved in Committee by my noble friend but as part of far-reaching reforms to local authorities' powers in relation to control orders. We thought at that point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave a rather sympathetic reply and I very much hope that the noble Lord will give a sympathetic reply to the amendment that I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am glad to say that I can be very brief in response to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We can accept the spirit of it entirely, with the one exception that it does not quite cover all the necessary consequential changes.

When we discussed this issue in Committee, I agreed to consider bringing forward a similar amendment which would give local authorities an eight-week deadline for deciding on a CPO parallel to the time limit for preparing the management scheme. We intend to bring this amendment forward at Third Reading. Indeed, I am told that it will be tabled tomorrow. I hope that that will enable the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It certainly gives the consolation that we are not striving in vain to improve the Government's view of the Bill before your Lordships. Under those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 77 [Codes of practice]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 250A: Page 51, line 8, leave out ("cases") and insert ("case").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 250A and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 250B. These are purely drafting amendments. Amendment No. 250A changes "descriptions of cases" to "descriptions of case". The latter is correct and conforms with other similar provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 250B amends a reference which should read "paragraph 43" because the numbering in the Arbitration Act 1996 was changed while it was going through the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 17 [Repeals]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 250B: Page 190, line 25, column 3, leave out ("44") and insert ("43").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 251 to 255: Page 192, line 38, at end insert—

("1996 c. Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. In section 9(4), the definitions of "the accommodation Part", "housing authority" and "licence to occupy" and, in the definition of "tenancy" the words ", in relation to England and Wales,".")
Page 193, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 1(6) and (7)."). Page 193, line 16, column 3, at beginning insert ("In"). Page 193, line 16, column 3, at end insert (", subsection (2), in subsection (3)(a) the words "or assistance" and in subsection (4) the definition of "the homelessness Part"."). Page 193, leave out lines 18 and 19.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mackay spoke to Amendment No. 251 with Amendment No. 24; my noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke to Amendment No. 252 with Amendment No. 84; my noble friend Lord Mackay spoke to Amendments Nos. 253 to 255 with Amendment No. 24. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 251 to 255.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 211 [Minor definitions: general]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257: Page 123, line 26, leave out from first ("tenancy") to ("Chapter") in line 27 and insert ("and "introductory tenant" have the same meaning as in"). Page 123, line 32, leave out from ("tenancy"") to ("of") and insert ("and "secure tenant" have the same meaning as in Part IV").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 212 [Extent]:

[Amendments Nos. 258 to 260 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 261: Page 124, line 7, at end insert ("; and ( ) amendments or repeals of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 or the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 213 [Commencement]:

[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 263: Page 124, line 18, leave out ("section 81") and insert ("sections 81 and 82").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 135. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 not moved.]