Lords Sitting of 25 June 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Duke of Northumberland The Duke of Northumberland—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Regulators: Independent Review
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will appoint an independent review committee to examine the power of regulators, particularly in the gas and electricity industries, and the effect of their decisions in terms of investment, profitability and employment.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government see no need for a committee to examine the power of the regulators. The Government believe that the regulatory regimes introduced at privatisation have served the public well, and will continue to do so. They have been very successful in delivering lower prices and higher standards of service for consumers and in stimulating regulated companies to boost their efficiency, which is their shareholders' best guarantee of future profitability. The regimes are flexible and will meet the new demands of regulating the transition of utility markets towards effective competition.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he will recall, regulators were first set up 12 years ago. Does he agree that it might be reasonable to examine their impact on major sectors of British industry? Is the Minister aware that British Gas has complained that it cannot possibly engage in the long-term strategic planning necessary in the industry because of the intervention of the regulator at various stages?
Does the Minister further recall the request of Clare Spottiswoode—who admitted that she was not accountable to anyone—for a public debate on the subject of regulators? She added that her annual report to Parliament is not worth the paper that it is written on. In the light of those suggestions, is it not reasonable to examine the power of regulators?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is the Government's view that, as we move towards the evolution of proper markets, the powers of the regulators should diminish. That would seem a desirable objective. There are some areas in which it is difficult to see that they will entirely disappear.
The noble Lord will be aware that the National Audit Office has been examining current arrangements for the economic regulation of the utilities. Its report will be
758
published in due course. So far as concerns the issue of accountability, as the noble Lord indicated in his quotation the regulators are aware of the criticism. I am pleased that they have been encouraging public debate and are consulting more before they take major decisions. That is resulting in greater transparency. They are also subject to the scrutiny of Select Committees and the NAO. The critical decisions that they sometimes take on licence changes may be referred to the MMC, which gives the opportunity for further independent scrutiny.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend can hardly have failed to realise that over the years there has been much consternation, both in Parliament and in the City, with regard to the power of the regulator. He will also, I am sure, know that the Hansard Society is currently conducting an investigation into that power. Will the Government look very carefully at the Hansard Society report, whether or not they decide to take any action upon it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated, the regulators themselves have sought to stimulate public debate. If the Hansard Society and others wish further to stimulate that debate, that is to be encouraged. In their difficult task, regulators need to attempt to strike a proper balance. Anyone who wishes to examine the duties of the regulator should examine that balance which is to see that, on the one hand, the best interests of consumers are maintained and that, at the same time, sufficient reward is given to licensed companies so that they are in a position to finance their licensed activities.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, despite the remarks that he made, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the present regulatory system as devised under legislation has led to a degree of uncertainty and volatility in the utilities sector? That is evidenced, for example, by the change made by the present gas regulator in the approach to energy efficiency as compared with that previously followed by her predecessor, or by the electricity regulator introducing a review of prices at a market-sensitive period. In those circumstances, and after the long period that the regulatory system has been in force, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, would it not be desirable to have a thorough-going inquiry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I must say that he does not entirely understand the Government's position. Our view is that there should not be in place a system of regulators that would persist for all time. In future, we want to see regulators playing an ever-decreasing role in regulation as markets mature and evolve. It is important to stress that.
There have been significant changes. One example is the set of proposals that Oftel is making with regard to BT. At present, something like 65 per cent. of BT's revenue is covered by its price cap. Under the proposals presently before BT, that figure would be reduced to something like 22 per cent. That is the right direction to

759
take, rather than looking to see whether particular systems of regulation should be kept in their present form for all time, albeit with some change.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend comment on any correlation there may be between the extreme degree of regulation which has brought down the gas price for consumers—which is good—and the very great increase in complaints to the Gas Consumers Council? Can he further say whether or not service is suffering because of an over-restriction on price in some of those industries?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, certainly so far as concerns all the utilities, prices have generally come down, with great advantage to the consumer. I am not sure whether the number of complaints to the Gas Consumers Council has been the result of the attitude of British Gas. It seems to me that it might be partially because we have allowed the British consumer to appreciate for the first time that he has a right to make complaints about the delivery of services. Indeed, in a number of circumstances, the British consumer has begun to appreciate that, if the service delivered is inadequate, he has not only a right to complain but also a right to compensation.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the telecommunications and broadcasting industries are converging and that there are some 10 regulatory and other organisations involved in those two industries? Does he agree that some kind of investigation is necessary in order to reduce the number of organisations involved?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated, the Government's view is that the eventual prospect should be of significantly fewer regulators and less regulation. Particularly in the area to which the noble Lord adverted, it would seem to me premature to speculate upon the point at which it would be possible to remove a significant degree of that regulation, however desirable it might ultimately be.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people will be surprised at the suggestion he made a moment ago that British people have only learned to complain about the work of the utilities since those utilities were privatised? Given that the regulators are there to provide fairness for consumers and stability to the utilities, is it not surprising that in a fairly new set-up the Minister feels that there is no scope at all for improvement? At the very least, is it not a fact that the different regulators in the different industries follow different patterns of operation and that that in itself may cause a sense of unease in some industries?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord and others could, day in, day out, suggest minor improvements to the regulatory regimes. But even that has to be set against the desirability of having stability within the regulatory framework. If there were no stability, the complaints now being made about the performance of the regulators would, in my view,
760
increase significantly. I remember when I was a Member of Parliament—I am sure that the noble Lord will also recall the situation from his time in another place—that I received endless numbers of complaints from people who could not obtain a telephone. There were something like 250,000 people waiting for a telephone before we privatised BT. One can now obtain a telephone immediately upon making such a request. I have no doubt that the service to consumers generally has been significantly improved as a result.

Albania: Elections
2.47 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received the report of the monitoring group on the elections in Albania and what action they propose to take through the European Union.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the criticisms contained in the OSCE/ODIHR report on the Albanian elections. The election process appears to have been seriously flawed. We shall work with our partners to establish a dialogue between the government and opposition with the aim of their agreeing steps to restore confidence in the democratic process.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and for the rather positive posture that he took. Is he aware that nobody expects that in Albania, above all, a general election can be conducted as though it were being held in Westminster? All the reports showed that it was a particularly scandalous affair. Can he say something about the kind of influence that could be brought to bear, either by the European Union through its various assistance programmes or by Her Majesty's Government through their know-how programme, to try to improve things in Albania?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. We believe that action should be taken through the OSCE/EU rather than take an individual stance on this particular situation. The presidency has issued a number of statements that we have supported, expressing concern about the irregularities in the electoral procedure and calling on President Berisha to arrange re-runs in the affected parliamentary zones or to bring forward substantially the date of the next elections.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, even though the Albanian elections were not on the level of anything that would take place in, say, Switzerland or Britain, the Albanian tribal tradition and state of development are somewhat at variance with the rest of the continent, after the harrowing experience under Enver Hoxha? The so-called democratic opposition is a fully communist opposition, which is certainly more aggressive and cruel than most. Sali Berisha, the president, has done a remarkable job,

761
especially in bringing about the reconciliation of the three religions. He is a Moslem himself, and the president of parliament is a Catholic and the prime minister is Orthodox. Under those conditions, does not the Minister agree that, while the Albanian elections may be criticised by those who want perfection rather than to deal with reality, in fact it was the closest one could get to democratic elections at present in Albania?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend. The report states that 32 articles out of 79 of the election law were violated. While I appreciate the facts as the noble Baroness states them, that cannot be acceptable as a way to democracy.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the role of the Council of Europe in assisting the process of building democracy in countries such as Albania is important? Is the Minister aware that on behalf of the Council of Europe I led the delegation to observe the local elections? Can he confirm that there appears to have been a slight regression, to say the least, away from a multi-party state? Will the Government do all that they can to ensure that the sort of comment which divides the opposition into communists and the government into the only acceptable party, which is in danger of reinforcing a one-party state view, is not propagated?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her knowledge of this subject, which greatly exceeds mine. However, we agree that unhelpful comments do not achieve anything. We want to see democracy in Albania and will do what we can wherever we can, including at the Council of Europe, to try to impress upon Albania that democracy is the route to take.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what indication is there that the Albanian Government will accept the recommendations made by the OSCE to re-run the elections in the worst affected areas?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, pressure has been applied already. As I asserted earlier, the presidency has pushed for either re-runs in certain areas or bringing forward the date of the next election. But that must be for the parties in Albania to decide. We cannot tell them how they should improve the situation or when they should do it. It must be done one way or the other, but it is up to them.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he is convinced that there is anything like a free press in Albania?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not believe that there is at the moment. It is one of the pressures that is being brought to bear.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, while I am impressed by the imperial traditions being shown in the House, can my noble friend say what Her Majesty's Government can do specifically to affect the elections in Albania?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the planned Commission mandate for a new EU agreement with Albania has been put on hold. That is something which is of great concern to Albania.
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I urge upon the Minister that in relation to Albania we make absolutely certain that we are in step with our fellow members of the OSCE and that we move together on the matter and not individually?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The OSCE takes the lead on this subject. We have also worked closely with the EU, US and other OSCE countries in Vienna.

Road Lighting
2.54 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the height, design and direction of road lighting along motorways and other major roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the height, design and direction of road lighting are carefully considered on a scheme-by-scheme basis to maximise efficiency while minimising the costs and the environmental impact by day and by night. The design recommendations for the lighting of roundabouts in rural areas where surrounding areas are not lit is currently under review.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the high lamp standards which are in common use obscure the night sky, obtrude on the environment, cost too much because so much metal is used and, when falling to the ground, cause much unnecessary damage? Will the Government try to achieve higher environmental standards by lowering the height of lamp standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we take environmental considerations extremely seriously. The simple truth is that if we make the stands shorter, we need more of them. If those in the centre of motorways were at half height, we could end up needing six times as many poles, with the consequent increase in the amount of light being put into the environment. It is not as simple a matter as one may think. We must also consider what the daytime scene looks like.
Lord Howell: My Lords, have the Government made any comparison of safety between motorways that are lit and those that are unlit? I have the impression that well-lit roads are much safer to drive on. Would it not be sensible for the Government to embark on a programme of lighting all motorways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Good lighting produces road safety benefits. It is estimated that in certain circumstances 30 per cent. of night-time accidents may be reduced using lighting;

763
that is, 30 per cent. of the 30 per cent. figure relating to accidents that occur at night. We have done research into this important subject and use a cost-benefit analysis process to decide whether or not we should be lighting a specific stretch of motorway.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that ideally all motorways should be lit. Will the Government consider planting barriers of prickly, vandal-proof shrubs such as rugosa roses down the central reservation so that motorists are not dazzled by the lights of oncoming traffic? It would not be quite as effective as lighting, but it would surely be a great deal cheaper and possibly more environmentally friendly.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lady makes an important point about avoiding the dazzling effect of the lights of oncoming vehicles. On parts of some roads barriers are erected. Whether those barriers should be of a man-made construction or herbivorous, for want of a better word—not quite the right word, I fear; made of shrubs, I should have said—has to be a decision made in terms of cost-effectiveness and with regard to the leaves that may fall on to the road.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give an assurance to the House that any action by Her Majesty's Government will be productive? Will he confirm in that connection that the European Commission may claim that it is a matter within its own competence? One would not wish Her Majesty's Government to waste their time if they had to ask the Commission's permission first.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, road lighting, be it herbivorous or carnivorous, is fully within the competence of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the European connection has been mentioned, can the Minister say whether a study has been made of lighting in Europe? Motorways are an international phenomenon. From my experience the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is being met on some European motorways.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend's objective is to achieve good road lighting with the safety benefits that flow from it while minimising the environmental effects. That is the policy being pursued in this country. We have a great deal of expertise in the subject, and the newer high-powered sodium lighting is producing the benefits we want in terms of containing the light. We look carefully at schemes in other countries but believe that the work we have done provides good solutions in this country.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his coining of a new word will be of considerable interest to the horticultural industry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are all having trouble with our words today. That is the word I was looking for earlier.
Baroness David: My Lords, has any thought been given to reducing lighting more gradually? To go from very brightly lit junctions into total darkness is very disconcerting.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is a good point; I do not know quite how one could achieve it apart from having progressively lower levels of lighting. The crucial point is that the areas where there are maximum safety benefits to be gained should be properly lit and that we carry out the proper analysis to decide that. I shall certainly inquire as to whether any work has been done on graduation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that coining new words is no substitute for coining new policies? Will he be more open with the House about the nature of the research that is being undertaken and the comparison with countries elsewhere in Europe. For example, is he aware that in Belgium all motorways are lit and that there has been a corresponding important reduction in the number of motor accidents which seems to bear out what he said in relation to the statistics he employed in his first answer? Is there not more room for engaging in international discussions, not taking account of what my noble friend had to say earlier but ensuring that the most important criterion is the avoidance of loss of life and serious injury which seem too prevalent in relation to night time driving, largely because of the absence of effective lighting?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the research front, I shall be delighted to send the noble Lord a copy of the pamphlet Road Lighting and the Environment, which I believe will answer many of his questions. There are two problems about having widespread motorway lighting. One is the environmental issue of polluting the night sky, which was raised by my noble friend, and the other is cost. We must concentrate our resources on where the maximum road safety benefits can be achieved.

Manchester Bombing: Aftermath
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the explosion of the bomb in central Manchester, what discussions they have had with Manchester City Council, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and other bodies about assistance to the city and business community in order to restore business confidence and repair the damage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my honourable friend the sponsor Minister for Manchester and Salford met the leader and chief executive of Manchester City Council on Tuesday last week to consider the task of rebuilding the city centre after the bombing and what government assistance might be available. The Deputy Prime Minister will hold further meetings tomorrow with Manchester City Council,

765
business leaders and small businessmen. Officials in the Government Office for the North West are in daily contact with the city council, Manchester Chamber of Commerce and other bodies to ensure that everything that can he done is being done.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome that detailed reply and wish to express appreciation for the Prime Minister's prompt action in sending the Deputy Prime Minister to Manchester tomorrow in response to the open letter last week from the editor of the Manchester Evening News, Michael Unger. Is the Minister aware that the Deputy Prime Minister will find when he gets there, although he probably already knows, that the people in Manchester who have to claim compensation will be at a disadvantage as against if the bomb had exploded in Northern Ireland? Surely it is wrong that the recompense for the people of Manchester who have suffered this outrage should be considerably less than is available in Northern Ireland. If the Government think that it may take some time to redress the balance by legislation, will the Minister suggest to the Government that they negotiate a substantial ex gratia payment with those involved in order to restore the buildings and protect the jobs which will disappear fast unless the Government act quickly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said about the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister. No one in the House fails to recognise the enormous task now faced in Manchester. While Manchester's excellent City Pride is already undertaking a great job, no one would have wished upon it this additional task of rebuilding the centre. But I have no doubt that the partnership in place there will provide a firm foundation for just that task.
With regard to insurance, there is something of a difference in the position between Northern Ireland and the mainland because in Northern Ireland for some time there has been no opportunity to secure commercial insurance. Since 1993 what the Government have done on the mainland is to act as a reinsurer of last resort. That has enabled those who wished to take up full terrorist insurance to be in a position to do so. At the present time I do not think that anyone knows just to what extent there are uninsured risks among those who did not take up the cover that was available to them. But if there are small businesses in that position, both Business Links and English Partnership are in business to see what they can do about securing relocation premises for them, and, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there is also a hardship fund established by the Lord Mayor to which they might have opportunity to resort.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish to associate myself as strongly as I can both sympathetically with the people of Manchester and also with the Government's response. The Government are clearly trying to get things started as quickly as they can. The object of the terrorist is to interfere with ordinary people going about the day-to-day business of their lives. The terrorist must be defeated in that regard.
766
To the extent businesses and, for that matter, people who need rehousing do not have the funds available in liquid form, which might be the central question rather than whether or not they can eventually raise the funds, will the Government at least use their good offices and ask the financial institutions to behave in a sympathetic way so that Manchester can get back to the ordinary business of life as quickly as possible? That is a way of demonstrating to the terrorists that they have failed and will go on failing.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for the clear indication from the Opposition Front Bench of support for rebuilding Manchester as quickly and effectively as possible. Regrettably, the first task at present remains that of assessing the extent of the damage. I regret to say that major buildings in Manchester are in such a perilous state that it has been impossible to get into them to see whether demolition is necessary or whether there is any prospect of rebuilding them. Some of them are famous buildings which one would instinctively wish to conserve. In the past, Manchester has received large sums of money in terms of regeneration. In the future, there will be the opportunity for both government funding and European funds to support their effort. It would be premature for me at this time to indicate what sums might be available and what work should be undertaken by government as opposed to work that could properly be undertaken out of insurance moneys.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may say as a Mancunian that we appreciate what the Government are doing and are trying to do so far. However, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many small businesses in particular will not have terrorism insurance and could be in very serious difficulties? I appreciate that the Government do not yet know how much the cost is likely to be, but would it not help those small businesses if a specific fund were set up from which they could draw or which would allow them to go to their banks to obtain assistance and thus enable them to stay in business, which is the real problem?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not think that I can offer the noble Lord the promise of a special fund. However, I am conscious that, when the Deputy Prime Minister visits Manchester, some of those he will be meeting will be small businessmen. What needs to be assessed is just what is required. For example, I know that there are small stall-holders in the Corn Exchange who simply cannot get back to their stalls to recover their stock. Before one determines whether or not a funding of them is required, it is desirable to examine whether, as I suggested earlier, there is a possibility for them to be relocated as quickly as possible so that they can carry on their businesses and not suffer the hardship which we are anxious to avoid. I am not trying to avoid the issue but just at the present time, given the extent of the devastation, it is extremely difficult to identify just what exactly is required to ensure that the amount of hardship that is suffered in Manchester is kept to a bare minimum.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Henley will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the self-government for schools White Paper.

Housing Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 172 [Duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 265H:
Page 99, line 45, at end insert ("and section (Duty where applicant has priority under section 148).").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 266D, which is the substantive amendment, and Amendment No. 268ZAF, which is consequential upon it. Under the Housing Bill a homeless family must await its turn on the waiting list before the local authority offers it permanent housing. While the family awaits its turn, and it is not deliberately homeless, it will be offered temporary accommodation by the local authority. The local authority must offer the family temporary accommodation for up to two years while it queues. If the family has not reached the top of the list for permanent housing by then, the local authority may continue to offer it temporary accommodation beyond that period.
Where will such families live while they wait? The Government expect that many of them will live in the private rented sector. That is fine if the property is available, affordable and suitable. But we know that in many rural districts there is very little private rented housing to be had. We know that in many inner cities private rented housing can be in poor physical condition and is often quite small. The landlords prefer to let to childless couples in work and they are not very happy to have as tenants homeless families on housing benefit with large families, for example. We also know that private rented housing is very often quite expensive. The average rent for a two-bedroomed council flat is £39, and it is nearly double that in the private rented sector. Housing benefit does not now pay all of the cost.
But even if there is private rented housing for homeless families to live in, and it is available, affordable and in decent repair, it is often still not suitable for some homeless large families or those which need specially adapted accommodation, perhaps because of physical disability. So the private rented sector has a role to play in housing the homeless, but it can only house a small proportion of them. The stock is not big or suitable enough to house most homeless families, which is why local authorities have used, and the Bill allows them to use, some of their own council housing as temporary housing. While they wait in the councils' temporary housing, homeless families are usually offered the old, unmodernised and least attractive council housing on the least popular estates—what we used to call "hard-to-let properties". Homeless families are not usually allowed any choice, unlike families on the waiting list who can choose where they live. The accommodation may still be on the small side, with three bedrooms instead of four, but it is much better than nothing and much better than what they may get in the private rented sector and infinitely preferable to bed and breakfast in two hotel rooms in a grotty area.
As I have said, local authorities have a duty to provide temporary housing for two years while families queue and, we hope, come to the top of the list and become eligible for permanent housing. If they are on the list, most families will be housed permanently by the local authority within those two years, and we hope that there should not be a problem for them. But not always. If, in the inner cities, there is considerable pressure on the waiting list or if, as in some rural areas, there are relatively few modernised council houses for people on the waiting list, or if a homeless family has special needs such as the need for a three or four-bedroomed house or a specially adapted flat, then the local authority will not be able to rehouse them from temporary housing into permanent housing by the time that the two-year cut off point is reached. From my experience local authorities report that there is only a six months' wait for a one-bedroomed flat; a wait of 18 months for a three-bedroomed house, but three to four years for a four-bedroomed house. Dover is one example out of a dozen that I have checked over the weekend. There is a wait of two-and-a-half years for a four-bedroomed house and nearly a three-year wait for one-bedroomed supported housing if, for example, one has a physical disability.
What happens then? For two years the local authority is obliged to help a person in temporary housing, but one has still not reached the point of permanent housing because one's needs are distinctive. The local authority is not required to continue to house families, but it can use its discretion to do so if it feels, for example, that the family has made an effort to look elsewhere, but there is no suitable accommodation for it. Clause 173 of the Bill makes that very clear.
The local authority can continue to house families temporarily beyond the two years if there is no suitable alternative accommodation except—and this is the nub of the amendment and the argument—if the local authority has offered a homeless family temporary

769
housing in its own stock. After that two-year period is up, the local authority has to evict the family. No homeless family is allowed to occupy council property as a temporary home for more than two years in any three. A family may be out for one year and then it can come back for another two years and then be out again for the third year. There is no scope for discretion whatsoever. Whatever the needs of the family or the wishes of the local authority, it makes no difference. According to this Bill as it stands the local authority has to evict even if that family is only three months away from being housed in permanent housing; even if, as in some rural areas, there is virtually no private rented alternative housing to be had; and even if a member of the family is in a wheelchair. That makes no difference: the local authority has to evict if it has used its own hard-to-let stock as temporary housing.
Then what? Where does the large family go? Where does the family with special needs live while it waits the extra six months or a year to come to the top of the waiting list? Will it find a home in the private sector? It is unlikely because these are precisely the families that the local authorities housed in the first place because the private rented sector was not suitable for them. So if after two years the family becomes homeless it is not very likely that it will find somewhere suitable. In any case the local authority has only a duty to continue to house the family if there is not suitable alternative accommodation. So where does the family go—back to bed-and-breakfast accommodation again? Does the family start all over again after three years?
This amendment, and particularly the substantive amendment, would put a safety net for that particular problem in to the Bill. It is a modest amendment, but it will save some of the most vulnerable people from becoming homeless again through no fault of their own. The substantive amendment says that the local authority which provides temporary accommodation to a homeless family in a council-owned property is not required to evict the family after two years, but has the discretion—and not the duty—if the local authority believes it reasonable for the family to remain, to allow it to stay in that temporary housing until it has reached its turn on the waiting list for a permanent home. It is a discretion only. If the local authority believes that the family could and should find alternative accommodation in the meantime it will require it to do so. But if from the local authority's own experience it believes that there is no suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere, it has a discretion not to evict the family. It is a discretionary duty which costs absolutely nothing. Indeed, given that the rents in the private rented sector, let alone the costs of housing benefit, are so high, there will probably be a saving on housing benefit. It will not only not cost anything, but there may even be a saving.
The amendment does not undermine the Bill. We are still talking only about temporary accommodation of the least popular and least attractive sort which the local authority is using instead of putting a family into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. However, the amendment would ensure stability for the families affected. It would give them more security, as opposed to uprooting them at the end of two years and forcing
770
them into temporary accommodation for another six months before rehousing them in permanent accommodation after that, which might mean that a child would have three school moves and would have to break links with friends three times in one year.
The amendment would avoid all that. It would, I hope, affect only a few families; those who had not reached the top of the waiting list for permanent housing after their two-year queue in temporary housing. However, they are the families which local authorities find most difficult to house. By definition, they are large families and families with special needs. They are the families which are least likely to be able to find other temporary housing. Those are primarily the families to which this modest amendment would offer a safety net. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for writing to me to elicit my support for the amendment. She knows that I have the greatest respect for her and for her sincerity in these matters. However, if there is one amendment which I could support less than any other amendment to this Bill it is this amendment. In the real world something like 30,000 constituents visit one's surgery over a period of 17 years. Most of the problems raised relate to education and housing. How can one suggest to people who have been on the housing waiting list for between two and four years that other people who have been able to jump the queue for at least two years should do so again? How is that justifiable or fair?
The noble Baroness rightly referred to the type of accommodation that is needed. There may be a need to move from smaller accommodation to, say, four-bedroomed accommodation, which is very rare. However, what about the people in unsuitable accommodation who have been waiting patiently on the housing list for the right kind of accommodation for them? Why should others have priority? The people to whom I have referred have just as much need of that housing. If, as the noble Baroness said, there is no private rented accommodation available for those "two-year" people, it follows that there must be no private rented accommodation available for those who cannot get the three or four-bedroomed accommodation that they would otherwise have been given.
It is perhaps generous to say that the amendment would cost nothing. I think that it could cost a great deal. Above all, however, I stress to the Committee that the amendment would be unfair to those who have taken responsibility for their lives. I accept that many people may not be able to take such responsibility for themselves, but many enter into marriage and have a family without thinking for a moment of putting down their names on the housing waiting list in advance. If the amendment is carried what would the noble Baroness say to those who do take such responsibility?
Lord Milverton: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also wrote to me asking whether I could support her on the amendment. My heart is torn because I have never before received so many letters on a single Bill. I have received about 40 letters from different people about this

771
Bill and particularly about where we are now. In spite of what my noble friend who has just spoken said, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but it will depend on what my noble friend on the Front Bench says. As I said, my heart is torn because I have never before received so many letters on any Bill. I shall listen carefully to what is said.
Baroness Hamwee: My name is to this amendment, which therefore has my support. Before today's debate my noble friend Lord Russell described the amendment to me as "so modest as to be bashful". It is indeed a modest amendment.
With regard to those on the waiting list, I do not believe that anyone who is promoting the amendment or who believes that it is an appropriate response to a difficult situation would suggest that those who are on the waiting list—or rather, on the register because the register is not a list which has regard merely to time—are in any way less deserving. Frankly, whether one deserves housing does not come into this. It is a matter of assessing need.
The amendment proposes that the local housing authority should have discretion. It will have to consider need and to look at the situation in its own area, particularly at the availability of certain types of housing stock within its own area. I believe that the greatest housing need is homelessness, but the amendment does not suggest that a local housing authority shares that view. It proposes that the housing authority should assess a particular situation.
It is a matter of real despair even to look at these issues. To consider who should be housed in what hostels and in what is, by definition, unsatisfactory, short-term housing is to avoid the issue, which is that there is insufficient appropriate housing stock. To restrict families to temporary accommodation for only two years and then to require them to be moved on, perhaps to a hostel, is not even to stick a plaster over the sore of homelessness.
What does it do to a family, particularly to young children, to be told in effect that they will not have any short or medium-term security and that they may have to be moved on every two years? That lack of security is part of the problem with the private sector as it is used now. In some cases families have to move every six months. That cannot be good. It cannot be right. We should be seeking to move away from that situation, not to confirm it. A child who knows that he is likely to be moved within a relatively short time has a sense of insecurity instilled into him—perhaps a message that he does not deserve to be housed. It must affect his education, and your Lordships have frequently emphasised the importance of stability and security if education is to be effective.
The amendment does not advocate a wait for permanent accommodation of more than two years. It draws attention to the need for local authorities to act in a responsible but flexible manner and to react to their situation. If the Government believed that it was possible to provide permanent accommodation swiftly, they would not have had to include a time limit in the Bill. The amendment is an attempt to react to that.
772
The noble Baroness referred to the constraints, if I may call them that, which surround the amendment. A local authority would have had to have undertaken a review of the circumstances of those concerned. I remind the Committee that those who are most likely to benefit from the amendment will be the most needy and vulnerable. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has gone a long way to answering the impassioned plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I would add only this: the key words in Amendment No. 266A are "reasonable steps" and the key words in Amendment No. 266D are "given reasonable preference". These words allow a local authority to make a balanced judgment of a situation. I am very happy to support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am happy to add my name to Amendments Nos. 265H and 266D. Like all noble Lords, I am concerned about the insecurity and vulnerability of those who find themselves homeless, very often through no fault of their own. Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands can only increase that insecurity. I am especially worried about Clause 182 and the effect that it has on the statutory duty of local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has pointed out forcefully and eloquently that Clause 182 as it stands prevents an authority from providing any applicant with temporary accommodation from its own stock, except hostels and leased accommodation, for more than two years in three. If a local authority under its Section 172 duty houses a homeless family, for example, in a council flat under a temporary tenancy, even if it intends under Section 173 to continue to provide temporary accommodation, it must evict the family into leased or privately-owned accommodation. That applies even if the family has nearly reached the top of the waiting list, is due to be offered a permanent tenancy within a month or two and is content to remain in the flat that it has occupied under a temporary tenancy.
I believe that this is a modest amendment and that it leaves a discretionary power in the hands of the local authority. It will come into force only after the authority has undertaken a review of the person's circumstances under Clause 173 of this Bill. On the basis of six-month tenancies granted by private landlords, whose antipathy to certain categories of homeless people is well documented, homeless people are already very much at the mercy of others. To allow a local authority to provide temporary accommodation from its own stock for no more than two years out of three adds to that sense of powerlessness. It has been said that perhaps this will work in an unfair way against those who have been on the waiting list for some time. However great their need may be, I do not see how they can be helped by forcing this vulnerable group of people to move out of accommodation after two years, perhaps for

773
just a year before they are rehoused. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this modest amendment.
Earl Russell: I do not know whether I should say good morning or good afternoon to the Minister. It seems like only a few minutes since we said good night to each other last night. However, he looks as fresh as a daisy and as relaxed as ever. I congratulate him. Now for the bad news. I see that the Minister was expecting it. He is an old hand. The Minister may be aware that today at 10 o'clock the Court of Appeal delivered another judgment in a homelessness case arising under Section 63 of the 1985 Act. Those are the provisions to be repealed under the Bill. The case concerned a claim for priority need in relation to homelessness by four asylum seekers. The court ruled that, in denying housing to those people because they were not in priority need, the local authority had acted unlawfully. One such judgment may happen to any government; two savours of carelessness. The judgment reached me about half an hour ago. I wish to study it further before I comment on it in detail. But I believe that it will involve serious reconsideration of some of the issues discussed during the progress of Part VI of the Bill. It also impinges on the clause that we are now discussing, which is why I raise the matter.
I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. She stressed the shortage of permanent affordable housing. So did the judges in the Court of Appeal and the affidavits of the London local authorities with whom the case was concerned. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness as to that shortage. Our major criticism of the proposals ever since they appeared in the Green Paper is that they do absolutely nothing to meet that shortage. That is the one thing which most needs to be done.
Granted that that is the situation for which we are now legislating—and I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness about the waiting list—there is now a crowd of people entering a revolving door. Under the Bill they are given housing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has pointed out, after two years they are thrown out if by then they have not found anything suitable, which very likely they may not have done. They then go back into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and all the way round the circle again. One knows what happens when too many people go through a revolving door. By use of the modest word "may", the amendment proposes to ease the crowd in the revolving door by occasionally allowing just a few people inside the building so that they do not need to go into the crowd any further. That seems to me to be a constructive proposal.
The Minister always invokes the interests of the taxpayer. Last night he made a comment which I believed to be unwontedly ungenerous. He accused me of not putting forward any argument concerning the interests of the taxpayer. I think that he has forgotten the string of Questions I have asked him, which must by now run into three figures. I believe that what is best in the interests of the taxpayer is that there should be more of us: people must get back to work.
774
Last summer, while travelling on the Underground, I was reading my newspaper and noticed a smart young woman smiling at me from the opposite side of the corridor. Naturally I looked up and recognised a person whom I had known previously as the Big Issue seller at my local tube station. She had saved enough money to get a permanent home. She had a good job, was earning good money and was paying taxes. We all wish that kind of story to be repeated as many times as possible. But if people in temporary accommodation apply for jobs employers do not like it. They do not know where those people will be next. They do not know whether they will be able to make the journey to work or whether they can meet the hours. Children's schooling is regularly interrupted so that the problem passes into the next generation. If we want people to be in employment we need to put them into regular housing. The amendment would ensure that just a few of them will be. I believe that we need to rejoice more over the one than the 99, and this amendment provides that there may at least be the one. I am delighted to support it.
Baroness Strange: Guess what? I have also received a letter from the noble Baroness. I have read it and listened carefully to what has been said. While I virtually always support my noble friend—the daisy-fresh Minister—and what he says, I hope that he will consider accepting the word "may" which would give discretionary power back to those who really know about the local situation. It does not bind anybody to anything. It seems very reasonable and I hope that my noble friend the Minister may have discretion to take it on board.
Baroness Flather: I too have had a letter from the noble Baroness, and I wish to thank her for bringing this point to my notice.
I have spent 15 years in local government, and all of those 15 years as a district councillor I served on the housing committee. During that time I found that gradually the management powers of the council were eroded by central government. This was a big problem for us because we always wanted to do the best we could for the people for whom we catered and who were in our charge. Gradually, we were not able to get rid of the troublesome tenants, or to move them around, or to allocate houses to those who most needed them.
Here is another proposal which will mean that councils' hands will be tied and they will be restricted from exercising their best judgment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Strange that it is merely a discretion. There is merely the possibility of taking the right decision in the circumstances which warrant it. It is important to allow this kind of power to remain in the hands of local government and to return, as my noble friend said, this management ability to the housing committees. I would like to support the amendment.
Lord Weatherill: As noble Lords well know, we who sit on the Cross Benches never issue a Whip, but all of us have received a number of letters, as everyone else has.
I am rather sympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, has said. On a purely sentimental basis this amendment is absolutely right.

775
But very few noble Lords have ever, I imagine, had to attend a constituency surgery. The noble Baroness is quite right that week after week people would come into the surgery bemoaning their fate because they were getting lower and lower down the council housing list. This was because of things like the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act which required the local authorities to house newcomers. The resentment of such people was very bitter indeed. Eventually, they probably waited so long that their family had left home and they came off the council list altogether.
On a purely emotional basis, I am in favour of this amendment. I have come into the Chamber to listen to the argument, and I shall be listening very carefully to what the Minister has to say in reply. I would beg the Committee to bear in mind that this is perhaps not so much a matter of sentiment—I think we would all agree with the thrust of the amendment coming from the Opposition Benches—but largely a matter of practicalities.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 266D and not to Amendment No. 265H, which I confess I do not understand. Amendment No. 266D has nothing whatsoever, as I understand it, to do with the permanent list. It is to do with temporary accommodation. On the face of it, it seems to me completely barmy that any family in temporary accommodation for two years, who have entered their children into school—perhaps I am reiterating what the right reverend prelate said—and who may be coming towards the top of the housing list should be told on a purely arbitrary basis that they have to uproot themselves and move into different temporary accommodation. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say. But such a situation seems beyond all sense, and extremely damaging to the family, especially the children.
3.45 p.m.
Lady Gardner of Parkes: I have listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I felt exactly as he does. It is common sense that if people are in temporary accommodation the local authority should have the power to leave them there. I have gone thoroughly into this. I originally considered adding my name to Amendment No. 266D, but having gone into the matter carefully, I have a number of answers that indicate to me that it is not quite as simple as it looks.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, explained that local authorities have a duty to provide housing for up to two years. During that time people are queuing for permanent housing. As I understand it, most homeless families are rehoused well within the two years—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, agreeing with that. Two years is, therefore, a reasonably long time. We are therefore considering the people who are in hard-to-let accommodation. That is not accommodation that people on the waiting list will jump at. It is unattractive accommodation. For that reason the housing authority has the power to consider offering that accommodation
776
as permanent accommodation to those people at any time up to the two-year date. The noble Baroness is making the case for the people who overrun a few weeks or months because their turn has not quite come.
Surely, it is within the wit of the local authority to decide that this accommodation is not particularly desirable to people on the general housing list; it is not particularly suitable; it is hard-to-let property, but the families are happy with it. My inquiries confirm that that can be determined and secured, or provided as secure accommodation, for the people who are already in it for any period up to the two years. I believe that councils should be capable of assessing a case and saying: "Your turn is coming up in two months' time; we can avoid the terrible situation of putting you out, finding somewhere else and perhaps moving you back again by offering this to one or two families and getting their opinion. It is still hard-to-let property and not attractive to other people, but we confirm you in it as secure accommodation". I would say that in most parts of the United Kingdom that would solve the problem. The Bill allows, as the noble Baroness said, councils to use their own housing for temporary accommodation, and that is not in doubt.
Inner cities have special problems, and the noble Baroness drew attention to that. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also drew attention to the court decision which pointed out that local authorities in inner cities say there is a particular problem there. It might be useful if the Minister could consider whether there is any way in which authorities, particularly some of the inner city authorities, could be enabled or empowered to enable people to remain longer than two years to match specific situations.
This general, widespread provision which the amendment will cover may create the situation mentioned by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. The person offered temporary accommodation, having got into the temporary accommodation, has rights for ever and has effectively jumped the queue. If one left such people in properties which were attractive to others who had acquired more points and rights on the housing list, that would be very wrong.
It is an emotional point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that people would move every six months. I do not think there is anything to indicate that. I would hope that local authorities, if they are having to move people often, would try to see that they remained within the same school area, and so on. No one would want to see children disoriented by constantly having to move on.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke to Amendment No. 266A, but we are not debating that amendment at the moment. It is going to be discussed later. It is not in the present group.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford explained that this is temporary accommodation for two years, but I have made the point that temporary accommodation can be made permanent, secure accommodation. It is not that people must be evicted when that two-year maximum period has been reached,

777
but until that date the accommodation could be available to a family and determined as permanent accommodation. While the amendment is attractive, and I am a great believer in local authority discretion, it would be wrong to accept it if it meant that we were reversing the whole situation with regard to accommodation for the homeless, which has been dealt with in other parts of the Bill.
I heard one of my noble friends say that he had received 40 letters. I have had many more than that. I have stopped reading them; I just count them now. That does not apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, of course. There has been an orchestrated campaign from Shelter. Everyone writes saying, "I am writing as Shelter has asked me to, to ask you to support what it wants." Shelter does a great deal of good, but in this instance I do not know whether it is on the right track. Priority for people on the housing list must be considered in terms of general need, and homelessness is just one of many factors.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may explain the point that I made about the six months. I am sorry if I misled the Committee. I was referring to the private sector where, too often, experience shows that landlords refuse to renew or evict after such a period. I was drawing upon that analogy and the disruption that it causes when urging the Committee not to replicate that situation, or something similar, in the public sector.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendments. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, can enlighten me. I believe that Amendments Nos. 265H and 266D are directly related and that we are talking in both about temporary accommodation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Absolutely.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support both amendments and hope that the Minister will look sympathetically upon them. They are enabling amendments to allow local authorities to extend temporary accommodation beyond the two-year deadline. I am thinking in particular of people with disabilities, rather predictably, but we are talking about a few exceptions only to whom local authorities would think of granting this concession. They will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, be unlikely to find suitable accommodation in the private sector. They may well take longer to find suitable housing.
If as a wheelchair user you cannot find housing that can be adapted to your needs, it is not being over-dramatic to say that it can limit your independence. It may make you less healthy. It can skew the whole family relationship. You may never get back to leading an effective life as you could otherwise have done.
Lord Swinfen: I believe it is well known that there are some 330,000 wheelchair-accessible housing units short in this country. As I understand it, the amendment would give local authorities discretion to enable someone—for example, a disabled person—to remain in tolerable accommodation to which they might have had
778
to move after succumbing to an illness or having an accident before being moved on to fully accessible accommodation. The power is discretionary.
As I understand the amendment, it is designed to be used in rare circumstances only. I suspect that that would be the case. It would be a misuse for a local housing authority to use the power regularly.
There is also the instance of the rare large family. There is little in the way of local authority housing to cater for the type of family that one of the bandsmen in my regiment had when I was serving over 30 years ago. He had so many children that he had to have two quarters. Normally, those quarters adjoined each other. There was considerable difficulty on one occasion when that was impossible. The two quarters were 100 yards apart. With fairly young children that caused considerable difficulty.
The amendment is worthy of consideration. If my noble friend cannot accept it, I hope that he will be able to give a convincing reason. If not, and if there is a Division, I may be tempted to go the other way.
Lord Hayhoe: I am always diffident when seeking to understand the details of amendments, or indeed of legislation, since the words used are often of such an arcane nature that the normal member of the public finds it nearly impossible wholly to understand it. One is accustomed to a Minister—I have had the pleasant duty myself sometimes—saying that of course the amendment does not mean what those proposing it believe it to mean.
Surely the essence of the matter is clear. It is, as I understand it, that the proposal is to replace a rigid, bureaucratic limit by an element of flexibility and discretion. No more, no less. The words may lead us into other areas. If so, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept the nub of the amendment and say that he is in favour of an element of flexibility and discretion rather than the rigid, bureaucratic limit.
Members of another place have the experience of holding surgeries and meeting people who complain about housing. Of course I endorse what has been said on the subject. People had strong views about those they felt were unfairly jumping the queue and getting in front of them on the housing list. It was often the rigid, bureaucratic formula being imposed by the local authority that led to that happening. There was no degree of flexibility and discretion which might have overcome the difficulties.
My plea to the Minister is to consider the nub of the issue. If the essence of the proposal is the replacement of the rigid limit by some flexibility, I hope that if he cannot accept the amendment he will at least give a constructive, positive response which may persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, to withdraw the amendment, in anticipation of something that may come forward on Report with the Government's imprimatur upon it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, in saying that the amendment provides only a discretion. For seven years I was chairman of

779
Birmingham's housing committee. It is easy for us to speak in the comfortable surroundings of this House; it is difficult when people are sitting in front of you. Homeless people are normally stressed out. You do not up sticks with three or four children and throw yourself upon the mercies of local authorities or anyone else and expect them to pick you up. There are normally genuine reasons why people become homeless.
The amendment only provides a discretion. We must recognise that many homeless people have been on housing registers for three, four, five, six or seven years while trying to get out of the accommodation they are finally thrown out of. It is important that we remember that they already have a place on the housing register.
If we move families around, it does not do them any good. It causes acrimony between husband and wife. It causes the children to be ill. It makes it difficult to have close contact with doctors and health services; in other words, if we do not give local authorities discretion, we are just pushing homeless people further and further down the ladder.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, especially with regard to families with young children. If people have to move out of local authority accommodation after two years, where do they move to? If they then have to return to the original housing, that may be very unsettling for young children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, they have not only to move house but school as well. The children may be attending two, if not three, different schools during that period. They will miss the young friends they have made and will feel very isolated. That all adds to the stress felt by families, especially if there is a step-parent in the family. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment with sympathy.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I feel a little like the odd man out in that I have not received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I will send it to the Minister tomorrow.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps we were here so late last night that the noble Baroness did not have time to send me a letter this morning. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his compliment and return it by saying that he is in as good form this afternoon as he was at 0100 hours this morning. Perhaps the same is true of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We return to the argument perhaps not on the same grounds as we left it, but certainly on related grounds in that it is on housing.
Before I turn to the details of the amendment perhaps I may say a few words about Clause 172 because it forms the basis of my defence of the Government's position. That clause is at the core of the change which we wish to make in the homelessness legislation. We are quite clear that the existing homelessness legislation,
780
which provides an essential safeguard for families and vulnerable individuals, has taken on a role for which it was never intended in that it provides a sure and speedy route into permanent housing for one particular subset of the population; namely, those who have become homeless.
People accepted for rehousing under the current homelessness legislation are, on average, rehoused in about eight months. However, those who are rehoused through the waiting-list—by no means everyone on the waiting-list is rehoused—have to wait an average of 14 months. Undoubtedly, homelessness acts as a fast track when it comes to gaining a council house for which you have been on the waiting-list.
It is interesting that of the three former Members of the other place who have spoken today two have agreed with the proposition that I shall be addressing. At our surgeries people came in in some despair because they were about to reach the top of the list and be given a council house when someone below them on the list was declared homeless and given the house. That happened time and time again in many cases.
I found it indefensible then and I find it indefensible today. If people become homeless, I believe that local authorities should address their immediate needs. However, it ought not to mean that homelessness is a fast-track to a council house. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Hayhoe agrees with that proposition. It is interesting to note all four former Members of the other place who have held constituency surgeries have reached the same conclusion about one of the real defects in current homelessness legislation.
Under our proposals in Part VII of the Bill, which relates to homelessness, permanent social housing will generally go only to people on the housing register. That is what Part VI was about. When a person is accepted for assistance under the provisions of Part VII he will no longer be homeless because the authority will have helped him. He or she or they in the case of a family ought to resume their normal position on the housing waiting-list, together with all the other people who are in unsatisfactory and perhaps overcrowded accommodation. Often such people are staying with parents who have had more than enough of grandchildren who, dare I say, are very nice in short doses but perhaps not in the long-term.
It is true that in most parts of the country most people with long-term housing needs will have been offered a house on the housing register well within two years. Indeed, in some parts of the country the period is much less than two years. The accommodation which an authority might use for its two-year duty as regards the homelessness legislation could be in some of its own stock, in property provided by a housing association or in the private rented sector. It is the use of the authority's own stock which would be subject to the two year in three rule, which is contained in Clause 182. That is an important provision and is not one that we have dreamed up in order to be awkward.
Clause 182 provides that if local authorities wish they may discharge the duty to secure accommodation for two years by providing housing from their own stock.

781
Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 will not apply and tenancies granted under those circumstances will carry no security of tenure as secure, long-term tenancies, which effectively provide security for life, may be allocated only through the housing register in accordance with the principles of the allocation scheme. That principle lies at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve in the homelessness and allocations part of the Bill. Long-term social housing must be allocated on a fair basis according to underlying housing need, not because a situation such as homelessness has arisen as a result of a number of temporary circumstances coming together.
No doubt local authorities will wish to balance the use of their stock between the limited requirements for accommodation in the short term from people who are homeless and the greater requirement for accommodation over the longer term. Social housing is a valuable resource and I am sure that all of us agree that priorities should be accorded to local authority stock which is capable of being let in the long-term and to allocate where possible secure tenancies to give all the rights which secure tenants have.
We should be most concerned if authorities did not do that but simply placed households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need in non-secure tenancies on a continuing basis. Not only would that circumvent the principle of allocating social housing on a fair basis according to the principles of the allocation scheme, which is contained in Clause 148, but it would also deprive tenants of the rights attached to secure tenancies. Not only would they have no security of tenure but they would also be denied the right to buy, the right of succession and the right of transfer, which may be important for people who wish to live nearer to a new job. We are simply not prepared to allow that to happen and I do not suppose that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment intend such lack of security to be the result. However, that would be the result.
We accept that there will be a few cases in which households rehoused under the homelessness legislation find at the end of two years that they have not been offered permanent accommodation. However, that must be seen in the context of the housing register as a register of need. If social housing is not going to households which were owed a duty under the homelessness legislation two years' ago, presumably that will be because other households in the locality have a greater need and are higher on the housing waiting-list. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and assented to by my noble friend Lord Hayhoe. As I said, that is a situation which we have all seen.
A great deal has been made about temporary accommodation and I understand the concerns. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and other noble Lords drew attention to it. Temporary accommodation is not how one should properly describe assured shorthold lettings. Temporary accommodation
782
refers to bed-and-breakfast hotels, for example, and we certainly do not expect local authorities to use such premises for the discharge for their two-year duties.
To equate shorthold tenancies with temporary accommodation, ignores the facts. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did so again today as she did during the previous day in Committee. On average, such lettings run for just under three years. Therefore, it is not fair to portray accommodation in the private sector on six-month tenancies as temporary. In fact they may be quite long-term and on average run out at just under three years.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that I do not see that people with shorthold assured tenancies would find it difficult to obtain work because they have temporary accommodation. That does not recognise the very fact that I made about the length of tenancy. The Government certainly applaud the example which he gave of the young lady who had been a seller of the Big Issue. The Department of the Environment gives the Big Issue a grant to help it because we appreciate the excellent work that it does.
One of the other points made about this whole question of waiting is that people with a large family may have a long wait for four-bedroomed housing. Great play was made of that. But if Members of the Committee turn to Clause 148, it can be seen that families with dependent children are one of the priority groups laid out in subsection (2) as, indeed, are households whose social and economic circumstances are such that they are having difficulty in securing settled accommodation.
From my experience of housing lists, I would say that having a multiplicity of children is a good way of obtaining housing very quickly and not the reverse. I am not for one moment advocating that people should follow the example of the friend of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. But it is certainly not my understanding that having a lot of children inhibits a person from obtaining a house because, with the points system, having three or more children means an allocation of more points than having two children, and so on. Therefore, I do not believe that that is much of an argument. Large families will find themselves reaching the top of the waiting list and obtaining accommodation moderately quickly. Therefore, there is no really good argument in that.
One must also consider the needs of such families against other families which are perhaps not very well housed and living in an overcrowded situation who are also on the waiting list. We must ask whether one family should have precedence over the other just because at some stage the family has been dealt with under the homelessness legislation and has been fast-tracked into long-term accommodation.
The clause proposed by the noble Baroness would have the effect of exempting from the two in three years rule those households which were owed the homelessness duty under Clause 172 and which were also entitled to reasonable preference in the allocation through the housing register. That would undoubtedly ensure that authorities would be placed in a position in

783
which people in such circumstances would find themselves accelerated into council housing in preference to the other people on the list. I do not believe that that is the right way for local authorities to be asked to look after their council house list and their stock.
I recognise that the means that we have adopted to prevent such a situation may appear to be rather inflexible. We have considered different solutions to this problem. We have invited Shelter and the local authority associations to do the same, and without success. Amendment No. 266D provides that the exemption should be only for those households which are entitled to reasonable preference under the allocation scheme. But we have made sure deliberately that all categories of persons put forward in the priority needs group in the homelessness part of the Bill, for the very factors that give them preference in that part of the Bill, will also be entitled to reasonable preference under the allocation part of the Bill. In other words, the effect of the amendment would be to exempt just about every household accepted as statutorily homeless by a local authority. We would be back to square one.
Therefore, do not be tempted by the noble Baroness's description of this as a modest amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate also used those words. But my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes indicated clearly that it is not a modest amendment. It would simply put us back to where we currently are, which is in a position where people can fast-track themselves into local authority housing if they are declared homeless and those who sit patiently on the waiting list remain sitting patiently on the waiting list.
My noble friend Lady Flather is keen that people in the greatest need should get housing. That is the whole point of the allocation part of the Bill; namely, to make sure that council housing is allocated on a basis of priorities which give housing to those in greatest need. The priorities are clearly laid out in Clause 148. I say again to the Committee that I do not believe that it is right that people who have all those priority needs should find themselves overtaken by people with perhaps fewer priority needs but who have become homeless. That is not fair. Those of us who have experience in this field know jolly well that it causes a great deal of bitterness and heartache on the part of those who find themselves continually bypassed.
I am afraid that this amendment undermines completely the provisions that we have set in place to ensure that secure tenancy regimes introduced at the beginning of the 1980s are not bypassed by local authorities which wish to place homeless households in their own stock on a continuing basis regardless of the consequences for other people on the waiting list.
My noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lady Gardner and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked about very exceptional cases. My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to wheelchair users. I suspect that the problem of disabled people is best addressed by Clause 148 which ensures that people who cannot be expected to find accommodation for themselves in the
784
foreseeable future should have additional priority in the allocation scheme. That brings me back to the importance that we place on the allocation scheme.
I shall certainly reflect on the point made by both noble Baronesses about very exceptional circumstances to see whether I can find a way in which to be helpful. But the problem is that if one moves from very exceptional circumstances to the more broad-brush approach of the noble Baroness then, as I said, we are back to the position from which the Government wish to get away; namely that people are allocated long-term council housing other than through the allocation list and through the priority reasons laid down in Clause 148 and carried out by most local authorities through a points system.
Allocation of council housing is not an easy matter as every Member of the Committee who has been a member of the other place or a member of a local authority will know. It is not easy. It is quite difficult to achieve fairness. I believe that the use of the allocation list and its exclusive use for moving people into long-term accommodation is the fairest possible way. What we have had for some years through the homelessness legislation has acted extremely unfairly for many people. I commend the clause as drafted and I hope that the Committee will not agree to the noble Baroness's amendment. If she divides the Committee, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: First, I apologise to Members of the Committee to whom I have not written. Perhaps I should apologise even more fervently to those whom I have pestered with a letter. I do not know which is the more grievous offence. However, I am very grateful to all those who have taken the trouble to read the letter and think about the matter. Whether or not they were persuaded, nevertheless I believe that it has allowed us to have a very interesting and informed debate. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have listened and taken part in it.
The crux of the argument of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has been that this substantive amendment is unfair to people on the waiting list because—I use the Minister's words—it would take us back to where we were because it would give people a fast track into permanent council housing. That is not the case. We are talking about temporary housing.
Nothing in the amendment in any sense challenges the central thrust of the Bill which is that allocations to permanent housing may only be made from the waiting list. People must wait in temporary housing until their time on the waiting list is up before they can go into permanent housing. That remains unaffected by the amendment. The substance of the Bill is unaltered; the amendment is modest. It states that people in temporary housing should not be evicted for the sake of it. They will not go into secure accommodation. If local authorities use their own stock they will use insecure, temporary housing which is hard to let: upper floor flats without a lift, maisonettes on unpopular estates. That is exactly the kind of property that families on the waiting list tend to reject when they have the choice. That is why local authorities

785
use it as temporary housing. In parts of the country, they have even demolished that housing, but many local authorities continue to use it as temporary housing.
All the amendment suggests is that local authorities would have the discretion—no more, no less—to continue to use that unpopular, unattractive, unmodernised property that no one else wants for temporary housing if the authorities believe that there is no suitable alternative accommodation for a family in which to wait while it comes to the top of the list for permanent housing, as the Minister rightly said.
It is no fast track. Families must wait. All we are concerned with is in what accommodation they wait until their time has come. That is the only difference between us; where they wait until they get permanent housing. It is not a fast track to anything. They wait, and it is a matter of where they wait. The Government have accepted that local authorities may use their own stock for two years. The Government have accepted that local authorities can continue to help homeless families after two years except that they deny local authorities their own stock in which to do so despite having conceded that the authorities may and should.
The amendment involves discretion. As it stands, the two-year inflexible rule which applies makes it a lottery for families. If they have a large number of children, they will probably not be at the top of the list where, under the Bill, they must rightly wait. If they have special needs for disability housing, they will not have reached the top of the list. They will have to wait. All we ask is that while they wait in this unpopular, unattractive, temporary housing, they should not have added to that the trauma of yet more evictions, with all the disruptive effects on the family.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked whether local authorities could get round the problem and offer permanent housing. If we had gone along that route, such an amendment would genuinely subvert the Bill. It is far more radical than anything we propose.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, that is not so. My statement was that the accommodation people are occupying as temporary accommodation can be offered as secure accommodation. It would be the same accommodation up to the end of the two years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, but not to that family unless it has reached the top of the queue. The Bill forbids it. We all accept that there is no problem at all—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry to come back again. When the noble Baroness says that they have reached the top of the queue, it is the queue of people willing to take that accommodation. She said earlier that the accommodation would be such that other people would not want to take it. Therefore, I should have thought that the family in it would be the people at the top of the queue willing to take such accommodation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, I wish that that were right.
786
However, the Bill does not permit local authorities to do that. Unless the family is at the top of the queue, the local authority may not house it above someone else. I fear that that would be the fast track into a council house which people have earlier deplored.
Although I support the noble Baroness's position, the amendment is much less radical. It proposes that while families wait in temporary accommodation, as the Bill requires, before being offered permanent accommodation because they have reached the top of the list, taking into account all the other families on the list, they may continue to wait, if the local authority thinks it sensible, in the hard-to-let temporary stock. That is all. Families wait in the hard-to-let temporary property until they reach the top of the list of those waiting for the more desirable, attractive, permanent housing which they would prefer, rather than being evicted. It makes sense.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has huge experience of local government, as have other speakers. They know that in such circumstances sensible local authorities want the discretion to be able to manage the situation on the ground because areas vary. Without that discretion it will be too much of a lottery.
The amendment is modest. It allows some of the most vulnerable families who have not yet qualified for permanent housing to remain in the temporary housing owned by the local authority. Such families do not interfere with anyone else's chances. They take their turn in the queue on the register, no more no less; no jumping of queues, nothing. They merely stay where they are. I had hoped that we would receive a response from the Minister but he has given nothing. He has not met us at all on the matter. Therefore, I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Hayhoe: I thought that the Minister said that he would look at hard cases.
Noble Lords: Order!
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 265H) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carter, L.

Addington, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Avebury, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bancroft, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Barnett, L.

Croham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Crook, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Desai, L.

787

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Moran, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Nathan, L.

Ezra, L.

Nelson, E.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Geraint, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Ripon, Bp.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rix, L.

Haskel, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hayman, B.

Rochester, L.

Healey, L.

Russell, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howell, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sewel, L.

Hylton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Ilchester, E.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

Judd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kintore, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tenby, V.

Lockwood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Longford, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thurso, V.

Lytton, E.

Tope, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McCarthy, L.

Varley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNair, L.

Wharton, B.

McNally, L.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Milverton, L.

Winston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bowness, L.

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ailsa, M.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burnham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Cadman, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Berners, B.

Carnock, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blaker, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

788

Clark of Kempston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L,

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cox, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cuckney, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Downshire, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Erroll, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Feldman, L

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pike, B.

Gisborough, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goschen, V.

Pym, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Reay, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rees, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Renton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

ST. Davids, V.

Harrowby, E.

Sandford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hothfield, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Inglewood, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Suffield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swansea, L.

Keyes, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Terrington, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Teviot, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Knollys, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Leigh, L

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Weatherill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas, L

Wolfson, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Self-government for Schools
4.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the White Paper which the Government are publishing today on extending self-government for schools. Copies are available in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of both Houses.
"The Government's education reforms have one central aim: to raise standards in schools. To achieve that, we have put in place a framework based on four elements: first, the national curriculum, linked to regular testing at seven, 11 and 14, and regular inspection of schools, so that there is a common understanding of what children should be learning, and what standards they can be expected to achieve.
"The second is greater accountability and transparency so that parents, governors and the wider community know how the system is performing. We have published secondary school performance tables, and will publish primary school tables from next spring. We have ensured that all school inspection reports are published. We have ensured that schools provide parents with regular reports on the school and on their children's progress.
"The third is more choice for parents and more diversity among schools. Church schools, grammar schools and others have long provided some choice for some parents. But we wanted more parents to be able to choose from a range of good schools the education which will best suit the abilities, interests and needs of their children.
"Thus we introduced the assisted places scheme. We set up the 15 city technology colleges. We have helped 180 schools develop their strengths in particular subjects by becoming technology colleges and language colleges. We have given all schools the chance to become grant-maintained. So far, more than 1,100 schools have done so.
"The fourth is more freedom and independence for schools, within this framework of accountability and parental choice, to run their own affairs. All local authority schools now control a high proportion of their budgets so that they can match their spending to their own priorities. All schools now have their own governing body, representing parents and the local community, and are responsible for overseeing the running of the school. Grant maintained schools which have opted out of LEA control have greater freedom to manage their budgets, their staffing, their premises and their future development.
"Standards, accountability, choice for parents, freedom for schools—a great deal has been achieved. We have a clear and comprehensive framework for raising performance across the board.
790
"Now we need to take the next step. Schools have gained experience and skill in handling their own affairs. They have shown that they can use that freedom well. So today's White Paper sets out a range of new measures to build on the framework we have put in place, particularly to give schools more freedom and parents more choice.
"We propose action in four areas: first, to give local authority schools more control of their budgets; secondly, to give grant-maintained schools more freedom in developing the education they provide; thirdly, to define more clearly the role of LEAs in supporting schools; and fourthly, to encourage more choice and more diversity, including through more selection of pupils.
"First, as regards more freedom for local authority schools to decide how to spend their budgets, delegation of school budgets and local management of schools have been a great success. LMS helps schools get better value for money and to match resources to their own priorities.
"We propose to bring more spending items within the global budget which LEAs use to set individual budgets for schools. And we intend to increase from 85 per cent. to 95 per cent. the proportion of that global budget which LEAs must delegate to schools. These steps would increase by some £1·3 billion the resources which LEAs are required to pass on to schools. Since many LEAs are already delegating more than the 85 per cent. minimum requirement, that is an extra £600 million, or some £90 per pupil, over what schools are currently getting in their budgets.
"Secondly, the White Paper proposes more freedoms for grant-maintained schools. Despite the Opposition's continuing hostility to giving schools the right to govern themselves, we now have over 1,100 grant-maintained schools. They include many of the best state schools in the country.
"The Government intend that grant-maintained status should continue to offer the fullest independence possible. We want to give grant-maintained schools more power to change what they do in response to local needs without seeking central approval. They would be free to increase their numbers by up to 50 per cent., and to open new nursery classes and sixth forms. We also want to give grant-maintained schools the choice to take on new functions currently undertaken by LEAs, such as running their own pupil transport.
"Thirdly, the White Paper sets out a clearer, tighter definition of the functions of local education authorities. LEAs would continue to have a role in providing services which schools cannot carry out for themselves. That includes, for example, drawing up statements for children with special educational needs. But it is not for LEAs to control what schools do. Each school should decide for itself how to operate. That includes deciding what support services it wants to buy, from the LEA or elsewhere.
"Hand in hand with that freedom goes an obligation on each school to account for its own performance. Responsibility for its standards rests with each school,

791
not with the LEA. LEAs do, however, have a role in supporting schools in their efforts to raise standards. That includes working with schools in setting targets for improvement and intervening where Ofsted has found that schools are failing to provide an adequate education.
"LEAs in their turn must carry out these functions effectively. The record of LEAs has, to say the least, been mixed. So the Government will be looking to develop better mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of LEAs themselves to ensure that what LEAs do, they do well.
"Fourthly, the White Paper proposes more choice for parents through a range of new measures to extend diversity. The Prime Minister and I have made clear that the Government want to see a spectrum of schools matching the varied talents, needs and interests of our children. That includes grammar schools. Grammar schools have a proud tradition of academic excellence. We want more parents and pupils to have these opportunities where there is demand for them in the local community—opportunities enjoyed by some Members opposite. We will welcome proposals for new grammar schools. Where an existing LEA school wants to become a grammar school, we intend to give the governing body a right of appeal if the LEA tries to block reasonable proposals. We intend to give the Funding Agency for Schools powers to propose setting up grant-maintained schools, including grant-maintained grammar schools, in all areas of the country where there is a need for a new school.
"Encouraging grammar schools gives parents greater choice. But our plans for increasing diversity go further. We do not want to see just two types of schools, grammars and secondary moderns. That agenda is out of date. The debate has moved on. Selection, too, is not just about the 11-plus. You can select in a range of ways, including by aptitude for a particular subject. Our view of selection is that it is about getting a better match between what schools offer and what parents want for their children to suit their individual needs.
"We want to encourage all schools to develop distinctive strengths and identities. There are many excellent comprehensives which serve their communities well. But we need diversity. We need choice. The White Paper would encourage that by a variety of measures.
"First, we want to give grant-maintained schools the right to select up to 50 per cent. of their pupils by ability or aptitude without needing central approval. Secondly, we want to give technology and language colleges the right to select up to 30 per cent. of their pupils by ability or aptitude in their specialist subjects. Thirdly, we want to give those responsible for admissions at all other LEA schools the right to select up to 20 per cent. of their pupils. Fourthly, we plan to reinforce the specialist schools programme by giving more support for technology and language colleges and by extending the approach to include schools specialising in sports and the arts. Fifthly, we
792
want all schools to consider each year, in consultation with parents, whether, by using their new powers to select some of their pupils, they could contribute more to the diversity of schooling available to local parents.
"A lot of progress has been made over the past few years. The Government have now put in place, despite resistance every step of the way from Members opposite, an effective framework for raising standards.
"It is a framework which provides a clear specification of what schools and pupils should be achieving; which holds schools accountable for what they do; which gives schools freedom to decide how to run their affairs; and which gives parents more choice.
"Much more remains to be done. Our social and economic future depends on making sure that all our children are helped to achieve to the limits of their ability.
"Today's White Paper sets out important new measures for making further progress in giving freedom for schools and choice for parents. It will help to get the best possible match between what schools offer and what parents want—which is a good education suited to the individual abilities, interests and needs of their children. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that interesting Statement. We on these Benches wish at the very outset to extend our deepest sympathy to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is so obviously suffering severely from a badly dislocated conscience caused by the repetitive strain of having to make so many U-turns so quickly. This year has been a difficult one for her.
We all know that the Secretary of State was no passionate enthusiast for the privatisation of student loans and that she espoused that Bill only to help the Treasury and the PSBR. We all know, because she said so, that nursery vouchers were not her preferred option and that she cooked up that absurd scheme only when her right honourable friend the Prime Minister told her to. And now, in loyal obedience to her leader, which we must admire, she has laboured and brought forth this White Paper on selection and grammar schools when we all know that she has always been a strong supporter of the comprehensive principle, even when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister. And, my Lords, that took courage!
Is it not a fact, as the newspapers told us last weekend and I have not heard denied, that as a Norfolk county councillor and a member of the education committee in the late seventies the Secretary of State voted for the closure of grammar schools, including the one which she herself had attended, despite legislation brought in by the Tories in 1979 which allowed local education authorities to retain them? She voted against them. She

793
voted for their closure. But now, because the Prime Minister has stated airily that he wants to see a grammar school in every large town—whatever that means—up she comes with an entirely new set of principles and a wholly unnecessary, divisive, irrelevant White Paper.
One wonders who is in charge at the DfEE? Is it the Secretary of State? Or is it the Prime Minister, making policy on the hoof week by week and indulging the dying days of his discredited administration in a nostalgic fantasy about resurrecting the grammar schools of his childhood where 20 per cent., selected by the iniquitous 11-plus, went in their little blazers and school caps, or their gymslips as the case may be, and learnt Latin and played with their cricket bats or their jolly hockey sticks according to sex? Alas, the Prime Minister really should be told that those dear, dead days are dead and gone, long past recovery or recall.
We have heard an outline today of what is in the White Paper. It is an outline which seems to bear all the stigmata of a pretty rushed and incomplete job. On the Statement, I wish to ask the Minister just three questions. First, if the proposal to have a grammar school in every large town ever came to fruition, would it not inevitably mean that 19 out of 20 children in that town would lose out? The grammar school would simply cream off 5 per cent. of the most able children, and 95 per cent. would once again make do with inferior education in contemporary versions of the old secondary modern schools. Those who were not selected for the grammar school would be told by their parents in some cases and by their contemporaries in every case that they had failed to get into the grammar school. Let us have no nonsense about being specially selected as more suitable for some kind of language college or tech. They would be regarded once again, as were so many children a generation ago, as failures at the age of 11. That is what we on these Benches are against. How long would it be before, in the interests of equity and efficiency, the old 11-plus examination again reared its ugly head as a general means of selection? Is that the ultimate aim of this Government and, if not, how can it be avoided?
Secondly, if the grammar school proposal goes ahead and assuming there are something like 200 localities which could qualify as large towns in England and Wales, at about £10 million per school, would not the whole operation over time cost something not unadjacent to £2 billion? Can the Minister tell the House here, today, now, from where that money will come? The education budget is tight enough, as 31 per cent. capital cuts for universities make abundantly clear. There is no flexibility possible. It must require new money. Where is this obedient, pliable and helpful Secretary of State to find £2 billion? It must come from generous donations out of their budgets by her colleagues in the other spending departments. Or perhaps from the National Lottery. Or perhaps from Father Christmas.
Thirdly, is it not a fact that no one, except the Prime Minister, has demanded the new selective grammar schools? The Funding Agency for Schools said yesterday that there was no parental demand for them. The FAS has no money for them. Its new initiatives budget is a mere £13 million and it is having to cut back
794
now on money for grant-maintained schools. And there is no demand from schools to have more selection—not even from the grant-maintained schools. Is it not a fact that out of 1,100 grant-maintained schools only 41—about 4 per cent.—have opted for increased selection? Of that 41, 35 have done so on the grounds of specialisation in music or drama, and we on these Benches have no problem with that. Where is the proof that parents, teachers and schools are crying out for more choice and more selection? There is simply no truth in the idea that parents want more and more choice. If they did, this proposal would not provide it. Selection means schools choosing their pupils, not parents choosing their schools.
We shall need to study the White Paper carefully but if today's Statement is any kind of advertisement for it we shall not approach the task with any manifest enthusiasm. Let us fervently hope that before it can damage too much it will all be swept away by a general election which will enable a Labour government to restore some sense, stability and sanity to an education scene which today seems to be directed only by the perfervid imaginings of a Prime Minister lost in some dreamland of his own.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I agree with many of the points that have just been made but I had intended to leave electioneering to a little nearer the date of the election.
The Statement contains no surprises. It was very well trailed. I still find it deeply disappointing. It concentrates much more on what divides us rather than what unites us. I believe that the education world needs more unity now. It also shows that the Government are more concerned with perceived party political advantage—I put the emphasis deliberately on "perceived" because I doubt very much whether it will achieve any party political advantage for them—than they are with a genuine desire to raise standards in partnership with local education authorities and schools.
With grammar schools must come secondary modern schools. They are indivisible and part of the same. There cannot be genuine all-ability comprehensive schools alongside grammar schools which have creamed off those with the greatest abilities. We are talking about a return to 30 years ago, to a time of grammar schools and secondary modern schools. Whatever language is used to dress that up, that is what it means.
Where is the evidence of the great desire for selection? It is said that the grammar schools are over-subscribed. So they are. They are good schools. But every good school—every good comprehensive school—is over-subscribed. The evidence shows not that parents want selection but that parents want good quality education. That is a very important difference.
I ask the Minister one very particular question, which has already been touched on. I want him to say today quite clearly from where the additional resources will come to provide the new grammar schools. Whether they be existing schools converting to grammar status or whether they be new-build schools, where will that money come from and how much will come? If he is

795
not yet able to give specific answers to those questions, will he today give a cast-iron guarantee that no resources will be taken from schools which choose not to go down the route of selection, and that additional resources do not come from them in order to provide the funds that will be necessary if there is to be an extension of selection? If that were to happen, they would be doubly penalised and the Government would stand truly condemned.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, are somewhat extraordinary. To accuse my right honourable friend and this party of U-turns on the subject of education is a bit rich coming from the party opposite. I do not know whether the noble Lord is Old Labour, New Labour, Very Old Labour or somewhere in between. I do know that there are some fundamental splits in the Labour Party on the subject of education. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are at one on this and are at one on the subject of employment.
Can the noble Lord give me exactly the same assurance about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place and Mrs. Harriet Harman? Can he assure us that they agree absolutely on the rights of parents to send their children to the schools that they wish? No, he cannot. Quite simply, the party opposite has adopted a policy of total and utter hypocrisy. It is a policy which admits—we heard it from the spokesman for education in the other place—that the comprehensive experiment has failed. It is a policy which then says that we must go on and have yet have more comprehensivisation. As sure as eggs is eggs, the only truly comprehensive system one can have that is totally comprehensive—the one which the party opposite seek—would remove all choice and all diversity, and possibly bring back bussing as well. The party opposite is pursuing a policy of hypocrisy. It is a policy which demands more comprehensivisation but which at the same time allows selection for those children lucky enough to be born to Members on the Front Bench in the other place.
The attempts by the noble Lord opposite to misrepresent the views of my right honourable friend were totally unfair and rather uncharacteristic of the noble Lord. I shall remind him of what my right honourable friend said on the radio this morning when talking about her experience as a councillor in Norfolk:
"The point is that while many comprehensives do a first-class job and many are in Norfolk, the Government's reforms have now proved that different kinds of schools within the state system are popular and help to drive up standards; and also that the whole thrust of our policy, as opposed to the policy that we were obliged to adopt in the '70s, is to allow schools to decide just what they want to do".
The noble Lord raised a number of questions and made a number of points. He concentrated on part of the White Paper and spoke solely about the provisions relating to selection. There was no mention of his views about the extension of local management to LEA schools, a policy which is hotly opposed by the party opposite but no doubt, now that it has done another of
796
its U-turns, one that it will support. No doubt this will be yet another policy that it will strongly oppose but come round to support in due course.
I shall deal with the three points made by the noble Lord and touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in turn. First, if there is a proposal to have a grammar school in every town, how will that come about? Perhaps I can make it clear to the noble Lord—I recommend that he reads the White Paper—that there is no proposal to have a grammar school in every town. We are looking to offer new freedoms to schools to make decisions about whether they wish to become selective, partially selective or selective in one way or another. We are not going back to the old grammar school-secondary modern divide. As my right honourable friend made clear in the Statement, we are looking to much greater diversity in the variety and types of school on offer. We are not only looking at the 11-plus; we are looking also at other methods by which it may be possible for schools to consider selection by either ability or aptitude.
The noble Lord referred to an alleged cost of £2 billion—the noble Lord, Lord Tope, touched on it also. I utterly reject that figure. There is no cost of £2 billion in the proposal. We are looking at ways in which schools themselves can seek to change their status because of the desires of parents in that locality. There may, on occasion, as there always has been, be a need for demographic reasons to create new schools. In that case the LEA or the FAS can make proposals. But we are not looking at a new bill of £2 billion.
The final point raised by the noble Lord was in relation to an alleged lack of demand and lack of desire on the part of parents for any more selection. I remind your Lordships of an opinion poll that appeared earlier this year. I am not one who bases all my faith on opinion polls, as some do. I understand that they are frequently wrong, as the party opposite discovered to their discomfort four-and-a-half years ago. On this occasion it may be worth reminding noble Lords of the results of a poll which showed that the majority of the population and, more importantly, a majority of parents favour a greater degree of selection. I shall give noble Lords further details of that in due course if desired.
The important point is that we are not seeking to impose anything on the schools, on the LEAs, or whatever. We are looking to the schools themselves, should they so wish, to move on to a greater degree of selection. I conclude by saying that I regret the limited response we had from the noble Lord. No doubt we will have further opportunities to debate these matters in due course. I remind him again that selection is not just the old grammar school-secondary modern school split that he seemed to imply; it is not just selection by the 11-plus. It is a whole range of things offering choice and diversity to parents, and it is that choice and diversity which we believe will lead to the higher standards we desire in our education system.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I can remind him that there is one question which both the noble Lord,

797
Lord Tope, and I asked which slipped his mind in the heat of his passion. The Minister did not respond to the question: where is the money coming from?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I dealt with that question when I referred to the alleged cost of £2 billion. I said that there was no such cost. The educational system will continue to be funded by the taxpayer with the record amounts that we have made available to it over the years under a Conservative Government. That will continue to happen and it will be for the appropriate authorities to suggest new schools as and when they are needed. We are not talking about a massive bill for a vast number of new schools; we are looking at schools changing their status as they wish.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, in the middle of this White Paper which the Secretary of State cobbled together is a proposal to reintroduce selection in pursuit of the Prime Minister's stated objective of having a grammar school in every town. That is the purpose of the White Paper. If the noble Lord was a little older he would remember what happened when we had selection before. The White Paper is putting the clock back 40 years with a vengeance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and I remember the utter misery caused throughout this country by selection. I have known parents who dared not leave their homes for weeks after the results came out because their children had failed the 11-plus. One could say that it was not a case of pass or fail until one was blue in the face. Every parent in the country believed it was a case of pass or fail.
I had the privilege of being the headmaster of a large and very good secondary modern school at that time. Every year I had an influx of a large number of excellent boys every one of whom came to me believing that he was a failure. That is what happens when we introduce selection in a locality. Whether or not it is left to the parents or the governors, if the policy is followed—thank goodness it will not be—throughout the country, in every town, in Cumbria and elsewhere, there would be a grammar school selecting by ability and 80 per cent. or even 85 per cent. of the children who go to the other schools believing that they are failures.
It must be part of the Government's death wish to put this proposal forward six months before an election believing that it will win them support. I can tell them that it will cost them hundreds of thousands of votes. They are already 30 points behind in the public opinion polls. This will put them 40 points behind. It is a disgraceful proposal. It fills me with anger and dismay that this "lot" here who are so discredited and who for months have been way behind in the public opinion polls bring forward this proposal to put the clock back by 30 or 40 years. We have lived through it, and we do not want the next generation to do so. My only consolation is that this lot will be swept out of office lock, stock and barrel long before the proposal can be put into operation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is the convention that I reply to each Peer who intervenes one by one. If noble
798
Lords want to adopt another system, I am more than happy to do so. I rise to my feet only to say that I accept that the noble Lord is somewhat older than me. But I want to repeat the point I made earlier. We are not here to repeat the arguments of the 1950s and the 1960s. We are not looking to go back to the old grammar school-secondary modem divide. We are looking at diversity. That is why my right honourable friend stresses in the White Paper the success of the technology colleges and of the language colleges and the desire to extend that to the arts and sport, something welcomed by the party opposite. At the same time the noble Lord wants a comprehensive system and nothing but a comprehensive system.
We are offering a range of choice and diversity. That will mean that some schools will desire selection but it does not mean that all schools will. We are not looking at compulsion for schools; we want schools themselves to respond to the desires of the parents and to make the choices themselves. We believe that that is the right way forward; but that is not to bring back the grammar schools-secondary modern divide.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I can bring a little rationality and lack of passion to this debate and point out the insularity of our discussion. In Germany there is a tripartite system and people do not feel a sense of failure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that there were problems up to the 1944 Act caused by the parsimony of the party with which I now stand and by the ideology of the parties opposite.
Everywhere in Europe—in Germany post-13 years of age, in France, the Netherlands, and Spain post-16 years of age, there has been diversity of choice without the passion and, dare I say it, the ideological nonsense which has bedevilled English education for the past 50 years. There was passion on both sides and I am merely trying rationality. We must look abroad.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord is the one waving his arms.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am not waving my hands; I am saying that we must think.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that I have been giving an ideological speech, and that is a bit rich coming from the party opposite. That is the party that brought in a system that was trying to bring a sameness to everything and identical provisions to everything. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pilkington for making the point that diversity is what we should desire. There should be diversity along with equality of esteem between the different types of school and that is what we are seeking to achieve.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I wish the Minister would look back to see what has really happened. He is full of Central Office jargon rather than pure education. He should look at his own county a little more and see what has happened there. He would then realise that he is talking nonsense in so many ways.

799
I wish to put the record straight so that the Minister realises the situation. For four years I chaired a committee looking at the interests of schools and of the management of schools. I welcome the first part of the Minister's Statement regarding the financing of schools and giving more authority to governors. The whole idea behind the committee was to get the politics out of education and to bring more community involvement into schools. Is the noble Lord aware that 98 per cent. of the parents in my authority get their first choice and that only 0.2 per cent. get their third choice? In my authority there are comprehensive schools, a grammar school, an independent grammar school, which was formerly a direct grant school, a Church grammar school and a technical college with two sixth forms attached to it? There is everything within my authority. We do not want any more choice. The parents in my area are happy with the choices they have. Why try to bring in something else? Where will the money come from? The Government do not have the money. We do not have the money now.
As the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches said earlier, parents want quality. That is what they are crying out for and not the choice that the Government are trying to give them. They do not say "impose"; they say "suggest", but what it means is imposition in some way or other. I ask the Minister to think again or we shall certainly think again when the White Paper is printed and we can read it properly.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord and I come from neighbouring parts of the world. I suspect that the authority he refers to is Lancashire. He is right to stress that within Lancashire there is a great deal of choice available to parents. In looking at the map within the White Paper I cannot see the precise boundaries of Lancashire but I can see that there are a large number of grant-maintained schools, both primary and special, and that there are a large number of grant-maintained schools in the secondary sector. There are a large number of independent schools in Lancashire making use of the assisted places scheme. The same is true of all three of those in my own authority of Cumbria. It is also true that there are a large number of technology colleges and language colleges, although I do not think Lancashire benefits from a city technology college. There is choice and there is diversity. I should like to see more choice and more diversity should that be the wish. I do not want the noble Lord to speak on behalf of all of the parents of Lancashire and say that they are totally and utterly satisfied with what they have at the moment. If we can bring them more choice and if we can give them more diversity, that will do a considerable amount towards raising standards and bringing the quality the noble Lord wants, and I want, for the parents of Lancashire and many other LEAs throughout the country.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we have heard a great deal about ideology and people's attitudes. I should like to ask a straightforward question. Can the Minister guarantee that any new funding required either for the construction of a new school or any conversion—there
800
will be some costs involved in either process—will be new money and not money taken from the education budget in a re-slicing of the cake? That is important in knowing what the Government's ideas are. Is there new money?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not here talking about new money. I wish I could get that over to the noble Lord's party as well as to the party opposite which first raised the question of £2 billion. At any time, whether we have this White Paper or not, there will always be a need for new schools here and new schools there according to demographic changes up and down the country. If a new town grows up or a town grows faster than others one needs new provision. It is a matter for the local authority or for the FAS to fund that school through the usual mechanisms of money reaching it from the central taxpayer through the Government. Nothing is changing. What we are looking to is giving schools greater choice about how they look at themselves—changing their status—and that need not necessarily cost money as the noble Lord implies it will.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, it is worth repeating the point made by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. The position taken up by the Opposition has been very parochial. The comprehensive system which we adopted in the 1960s onwards is almost unique in Europe. Throughout Europe, and not just in the countries mentioned by my noble friend, but in eastern Europe as well, there is much more diversity of provision than we have. They do not do it as inflexibly as we did under the old 11-plus system and they do not do it at the same age. But no one on this side of the House is proposing that that should happen. It is essential to emphasise that point.
Secondly, it is because of our comprehensive experiment that we have had the crisis in standards which the other side accepts as well. Why are we, uniquely in Europe, talking about our crisis in standards? There seems to be a direct connection between that and the sweeping away of the grammar schools in the 1960s and 1970s. This is part of the policy of improving standards. It will be understood by all other countries in Europe, none of which has followed us down the disastrous path which the Opposition parties now want to strengthen.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am more than grateful to my noble friend for again stressing the point that seems rather difficult to get into the minds of the party opposite. I refer to the importance of diversity and the importance of extending choice through diversity. I know that the party opposite does not like that choice and does not like that diversity, but we believe that offering parents choice about the kind of schools they want and the kind of schools that are appropriate for their children does an enormous amount to involve those parents in their schools and, by so doing, to raise standards. But my noble friend, myself and other noble friends can probably go on saying that until we are blue in the face. We can probably go on saying that we do not want to refight the arguments of the 1950s and 1960s, as I made clear to the noble Lord,

801
Lord Glenamara, but they seem to want to go on fighting those old debates. That is not the case. We are taking things on further.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I do not want to go into the argument about the Government's aspiration to reintroduce secondary-modern education in every town and city in the United Kingdom. It seems to me from the Statement that that is the Government's aspiration. Perhaps I may touch on something the Statement says rather more specifically which gives me cause for concern because of relatively recent experience in the city of Manchester. As I heard it, the Statement suggested that all grant-maintained schools could select up to 50 per cent. of their intake.
One of the things most of us experienced at school was an esprit de corps, a feeling that our school was different from other schools. That brought us together. Our experience in Manchester as a result of a reorganisation which was interfered with by the then Secretary of State for Education, who later became Lord Joseph, resulted in three schools being singled out to stay as they were and not be part of the rest of the reorganisation that we were undertaking. One of those schools was a boys' school which was singled out by the Secretary of State for Education as a school of proven worth. It had been a grammar school and had become a comprehensive school.
In the immediate following years the intake of the school assumed two distinct profiles. One was from parents who aspired to an academic education for their sons who came from all over the city. The other was for a local school serving the local community. So within that school there were two separate and distinct communities of scholars. It is very sad to relate that that splitting of the school into two distinct communities within the one school resulted in conflict. It actually resulted in the death of a pupil who was knifed by another pupil.
That is a kind of experience that is relatively recent. It should be within the ken of this Government to gain some clue as to what might happen if they pursue this path of effectively allowing grant-maintained schools to have two separate communities within them. I ask the Government to think again on this particular element as it will be so divisive within the schools themselves.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am certainly not going to follow the noble Lord in attributing the tragic death of a pupil at a school to the policies of Her Majesty's Government or to some such other cause. That would be over-simplistic and it is not the way to look at things.
The noble Lord is right to say that we put forward as one of our proposals the fact that grant-maintained schools have a policy for the selection of up to 50 per cent. of their pupils without coming to the Secretary of State. As it is, at the moment there are a number of grant-maintained schools which are selective and as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, reminded the House somewhat gleefully, there are not very many. But there are some and the provision can be made by going to the Secretary of State.
All we are saying is that obviously that can be done in the future. If the schools desire to make statutory proposals of that sort they can be made to the Secretary of
802
State. But there should be further freedoms to develop the schools without coming to the Secretary of State. We believe that one of those freedoms should be the right to select, by whatever is considered the appropriate means—and I emphasised that that does not mean necessarily returning to the 11-plus—up to 50 per cent. of pupils by ability or aptitude. The same applies to the technology and language colleges. For some reason that is welcomed by the party opposite despite its hatred of choice and diversity. The schools should be able to select by aptitude or ability some 30 per cent. of their pupils in particular subjects. We make no bones about it. It is a matter for the schools themselves whether to pursue that particular line.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may point out that he keeps referring to the hatred of choice and diversity on this side of the House. Will he explain to me how my choice as a parent is extended if my local school changes its nature from being a comprehensive to a selective school on grounds of academic ability and I enter my child for that school and the child fails the entrance exam? I fail to see how that extends my choice as a parent.
If my child were able enough to go to that sort of school, but in a system where there were schools for the academically able and the less able, I fail to see how my choice to have my child educated with a range of abilities among the children in the community will be enhanced. It is not a question of simple hatred of choice but the fact that these issues are very complicated and that there is a history in the selection process in this country as regards education that has been a millstone around this nation's neck. It is that more than the comprehensive system which has created the problems that we have today. The choice we want concerns quality schools for all our children.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that this is a very complicated issue. It is the party opposite which is trying to reduce it to a simple matter of putting us back into the position of the old grammar school—secondary modern divide. We are not doing that. We are trying to extend the diversity and range of schools. The party opposite desires a comprehensive system of a sort that will offer no choice whatever. We reject that. We believe that the noble Baroness's choice is being extended.

Housing Bill
5.25 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 172.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 100, line 2, after ("that") insert ("suitable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 266B. Its purpose is to ensure that, when a local authority has a duty to secure accommodation which is available for a person who is homeless and in priority need, the accommodation shall be suitable for occupation by the applicant. Under this clause, a local authority has a duty towards people who are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and

803
not intentionally homeless. That duty can be met by the local authority securing accommodation that is available for occupation by the applicant.
However, there is no mention in the clause of the accommodation having to be suitable for the individual requirements of the applicant. For disabled people it is particularly important that any accommodation should be suitable for their needs because of their disability. There are certain areas in which suitability for the individual disabled person is vital. The first of these is access. Any offer of accommodation must be accessible. The requirement for access and the level of accessibility will depend on the needs of the disabled individual. However, that individual must be able to get into the property independently, move around the dwelling and use the facilities of the main rooms to include the living room, bedroom, kitchen, lavatory and bathroom.
The next requirement is safety. The property must be safe for the person. Again, the requirements will depend on the needs of the individual disabled person. The basic requirements would be to have adequate arrangements in case of fire or evacuation, safe access to facilities and adequate circulation space and, if necessary, lighting. Any safety features such as locks will also need to be suitable for use by a disabled person.
The next factors which have to be taken into account are facilities and care arrangements. Many disabled people need access to facilities such as particular schools, day centres or work. Arrangements to attend these can take a considerable time. It is important that such arrangements are maintained. For example, if a disabled child is attending a particular school it is essential that he should be able to continue attending that school if he wishes. Therefore, any housing should be in an area which will allow the child to continue attending the school straightforwardly. The same concerns are important for the care arrangements which should not have to be rearranged. Making such arrangements can be difficult and disruptive to the family.
There are other issues which many non-disabled people take for granted when considering whether housing is suitable; for example, transport. That is something that many people never consider when looking at housing. Many disabled people who cannot use public transport have to use a private car. Parking near their home is not only necessary: it is essential. Arranging a disabled parking bay can take several months and it is necessary if there are parking restrictions in the area. Therefore, the availability of parking for disabled people who cannot use public transport, but who are orange badge holders, should be considered when looking at the suitability of housing.
Any accommodation offered or secured by local authorities, whether it be permanent or temporary, must be suitable for the needs of the household or the individual it is being offered to. As I have already said, it is particularly important that disabled people, who often have specific requirements, should have suitable housing in terms of access, safety, facilities and care arrangements. The intention of this amendment is to
804
ensure that the accommodation secured for homeless people is suitable for those who are disabled and in priority need. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As this amendment stands in my name also, perhaps I may briefly add some words of support. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already explained it clearly and comprehensively, I shall not bore the Committee by repeating some of the physical, psychological and social effects that non-suitable housing can have on a disabled person and, indeed, a whole family. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.
Earl Russell: In supporting the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 266B which stands in my name. The word in both amendments is "suitable"; the difference is only that they purchase on different parts of the Bill. In my opinion the Bill needs both amendments because they achieve the same thing in different contexts.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, relates to the duty to secure accommodation, as he has explained. My amendment relates to the fact that if a local authority has made a single offer to a person and the person has refused it, the duty on the local authority ceases. That encapsulates what has been the practice of some local authorities, including my own, for quite a long time. There have been cases where a local authority has not wanted to house certain people. For a while that applied to victims of domestic violence who came from another borough. Local authorities did not like that. It has been the practice of certain local authorities to deal with people they do not particularly want to house by giving them the most unsuitable offer of accommodation that they can find. The duty then ceases because the people refuse the offer.
I recall a particular case of a discharge from a local refuge. That woman was offered a place on the most violent estate in Brent. The property had no bath; it was broken to smithereens. There was no lock on the door. If you have been a recent victim of domestic violence, you do not regard a place with no lock on the door as "suitable" accommodation. Moreover, that woman had received just that day on discharge from the refuge a community care grant of £600 from the Social Fund—I am glad to be able to acknowledge that on occasion the Department of Social Security can be generous. As she had no bank account, she was given the money in cash. On her very first evening in that new accommodation, which she had accepted for fear of being ruled to be intentionally homeless if she refused it, every single pound of that money was stolen. Naturally, the Social Fund did not feel like giving it a second time.
That is the sort of thing that can happen if the local authority is not under an obligation to make sure that the offer is "suitable". That is an actual case. I admit that it is unusual, but such cases can happen and if they have happened once, they can happen again.

805
In passing, perhaps I may agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about transport to schools. One does not always want to ask young children to cross very many busy roads, especially coming back from primary school. It is particularly important, especially for people who work unsocial hours, to have accommodation in a place from which they can work. If you have to be at work at 5.30 a.m. or have to leave work at the sort of time that we left this place last night, you need to be within travelling distance or have a car. Most of the people with whom we are dealing do not have a car. That is why I think that "suitable" accommodation must mean accommodation from which you can work.
Lord Mottistone: As the Committee probably knows, I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. I should like to support both amendments, and particularly the speech of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. Perhaps I may give the Committee one brief example of why it is particularly important that schizophrenic people should not be offered housing which is unsuitable. After four months in hospital, a person with schizophrenia was discharged back to a 16th floor high-rise flat where the gas and electricity had been disconnected and everything was in chaos. His family did not want him to return there and hoped that he would stay in the hospital until more suitable accommodation was available because his friend with a flat on the 21st floor of the block had committed suicide by throwing herself from it. Five weeks after being discharged, the schizophrenic person about whom I am talking did exactly the same and was killed.
That is just one example of many such occurrences. It seems to me that including the word "suitable" where suggested is sensible. It is a fact that the Government themselves have included the word "suitable" elsewhere in this part of the Bill, such as in Clause 169(1), twice in Clause 170(4), and in Clause 176(1), so it is not entirely unknown for the Government to include "suitable" in suitable places. I apologise for the pun. I hope that my noble friend will listen to what we have said and that he will perhaps gently accept the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: We have heard moving speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Mottistone, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), about people with various disabilities. I welcome the amendment because it would help certain categories of families, particularly families with children and particularly those with many children, as well as many other categories of disadvantaged people.
What worries me about the amendment is that it seems so sweeping that I fear that the Minister will turn it down simply because it will include too many categories of people and impose too heavy a demand on local authorities. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment—I urge him to do so—will he perhaps give us some encouragement to frame another amendment which would be slightly more limited to those who are genuinely in need?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have sympathy with the amendment, in that I would, of course, want to see
806
disabled people in appropriate accommodation. I found the case of the schizophrenic tragic. I do not know from where that person was discharged, but there was a lack of liaison between the health authority which had been caring for him and the community care services or acute care services. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship does marvellous work.
My question on the amendment is: who determines suitability? Over the years that I have shown people accommodation, I have found that many people say, "Oh no, I would not live in that block because I am waiting for the new one up the street". There would have to be an objective assessment of "suitable". Other wording might be, "accommodation deemed by the local authority to be suitable". It must not purely be a matter of whether or not you like a property and whether the view is what you want. That is why I feel that the word "suitable" may be a little risky.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness briefly. Normally the word "suitable" gives rise to a negotiation and once people know that they have to negotiate, they tend to become a bit more reasonable. If they do not, ultimately it is a matter for the courts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I very much support the amendments. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment No. 266, what he is saying in effect is that a local authority could discharge its duty by offering unsuitable accommodation. Clearly, that is not within the spirit of the legislation. The test of suitability can relate to the state of the property, particularly in terms of its physical repair. If a property is damp, it will be inappropriate, particularly for children with asthma or for an elderly person with a bronchial condition. A property might also be unsuitable in terms of space, given the age of the children, who might need separate bedrooms. It may be a question of affordability. We shall return to that point later. All of those can be important tests of suitability, but even more important is the fact that disabled people need to have ease of physical access to a property.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said that it may just be a question of the view. The point about including the word "suitable" is that the local authority would have been expected to offer a property which was "suitable" in the view of a reasonable person. That means that if a local authority offered a property that did not fit those requirements in terms of its physical condition, the number of bedrooms, or ease of access for somebody with a disability, it would be subject to judicial review. If a word such as "suitable" is not included the person at the receiving end is totally in the hands of those who make the offer, whatever it may be. If it is unsuitable and the person refuses it he or she will be deemed to be intentionally homeless and the local authority will have discharged its duty towards that person. I am sure that that is not intended by the Minister. I very much hope that the Minister can accept the amendment moved by his noble friend.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Both amendments relate to an authority's duty to an applicant who it is satisfied is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority

807
need and not homeless intentionally. Amendment No. 266 provides that unless the authority refers such an applicant to another authority it shall secure that "suitable" accommodation is available for his occupation. Amendment No. 266B relates to one of the circumstances in which an authority's duty to secure accommodation for such an applicant ceases. It would provide for the duty to cease where the applicant, having been informed of the possible consequence of refusal, refused an offer of "suitable" accommodation under the allocation provisions in Part VI.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen deals with the issue of suitability of accommodation. I believe that that is covered perfectly adequately by Clause 182. That clause deals with the discharge of functions by local authorities under the homelessness provisions in Part VII. Clause 182 states:
"(1) This section applies in relation to the discharge by a local housing authority of their functions under this Part to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of a person.
(2) The authority may discharge such functions …"
Each of the following paragraphs uses the words "suitable accommodation":

"(a) by securing that suitable accommodation provided by them is available,

(b) by securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person, or

(c) by giving him such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available from some other person".

If my noble friend reads the whole of that part of the Bill, in particular Clause 182, he will see that the word "suitable" in that clause qualifies all other provisions in this part of the Bill. In Clause 183 the issues to which the authority must have regard in considering suitability are set out. Further, it includes order-making powers by which the Secretary of State can specify both the circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable and the matters to be taken into account or disregarded in determining the suitability of accommodation. We are still considering how those powers may best be used.
My noble friend referred to access to schools. That is something that everyone must take into account in deciding where to live, whether it be under the homelessness legislation or, as in the case of the great majority, on their own account. It is not unique to those who are homeless. But the code of practice points to the need for good access to schools and other facilities. The current code already does that, and that point will be reiterated in the revised code.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave an example which I believe he had already referred to in this Chamber. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be wrong for a local authority to attempt to discharge its duty in a manifestly hard-to-let property of the kind to which he referred. We will cover that matter in the guidance. I apologise for giving the same answer again. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested that this amendment was too radical and something less radical was possible. Certainly, something less radical will appear in the guidance that we intend to issue.
808
Perhaps I may try to think up a question that has not yet been asked. It may be that your Lordships will ask about the status of the guidance and suggest that local authorities will ignore it. That point has already been made to me by the noble Earl. Of course, guidance is a general statement about how the statute should be applied. I believe that local authorities who ignore it do so at their peril. The local authority risks challenge in court where the guidance can be legitimately quoted by a person aggrieved by what the local authority has done in furtherance of its responsibilities under the homelessness legislation.
The amendment of the noble Earl seeks to amend Clause 172(7)(a). In considering this amendment, regard should also be had to subsection (7)(b) of the same clause. This provides that the duty ceases if the applicant refuses an offer of accommodation and the authority is satisfied that it is reasonable for him to accept it. The Government are inclined to the view that the test of reasonableness in that subsection is sufficient to ensure that the offer should be of accommodation which is suitable for the applicant to occupy. However, the Government are considering further the implications of subsection (7) to ensure that the element of reasonableness is carried through as intended. If as a result of that further consideration the wording is found to be inadequate, we intend to table the appropriate amendment at Report stage.
I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend Lord Swinfen that, reading Clauses 182 and 183 together and with the guidance that is to come, his amendment is unnecessary. In the light of my assurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. As far as concerns the amendment of the noble Earl, I hope that with my assurances in relation to subsection (7)(b), and the fact that we are looking at that subsection as a whole to ensure that it does what we intend it should do, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in responding to this amendment. I take his point about Clause 182 and am reassured by what he has said. I am not as reassured by what he has said about subsection (7)(b). I have no objection to the test of reasonableness. The problem is that it is the local authority which has to be satisfied as to reasonableness. The local authority is here made judge and party in its own cause. We have heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, how intense the pressure can be on a local authority when it is short of housing stock. That point was made most forcefully in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The tensions which gave rise to that case going to court arose largely from lack of stock.
A decision may appear to the local authority to be reasonable but it may not necessarily appear reasonable to anyone else. In the case that I mentioned—I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about guidance—it appeared to the local authority to be reasonable. In reply to representations the local authority insisted that it was reasonable. It did not wish to house

809
the applicant because of lack of local connection. There are questions that the Minister has not answered, and it would be very much appreciated if he could give thought to them before the next stage.
Lord Swinfen: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, which has been useful in eliciting the responses of my noble friend. I am happy with his answer. Undoubtedly, I shall return to my amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I shall be interested to see whether my noble friend tables an amendment on the lines suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 100, line 4, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 19 and insert ("shall take reasonable steps thereafter to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may refer to this matter as the "Baroness Gardner of Parkes" amendment. It goes further than the amendment that we moved earlier. I believe that the noble Baroness encouraged us to go for this amendment. I hope I may have her support. This amendment seeks to require local authorities to continue to ensure that accommodation for homeless families does not cease after two years. At the moment local authorities have discretion to continue to ensure that housing is available. This amendment would make it into a duty.
That duty would include making provision for a secure tenancy if local authorities thought it appropriate. The government code of guidance, revised as late as 1994, says:
"If an authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless, in priority need and has not become homeless intentionally, the authority then has a duty to secure that accommodation is made available. The legislation makes it clear that the authority's duty to such an applicant is to secure long term settled accommodation, commonly described as 'permanent'."
That was the Government's position as of 1994. All the professional housing bodies, the local authorities, the Churches, and voluntary organisations agree. Even the department agreed on the three previous occasions on which it reviewed homelessness legislation under Mr. Heseltine, Mr. Patten and Lord Ridley. Only the current Government, temporarily, do not agree.
Under this Bill we have a situation by which families will live in temporary accommodation for two years or more instead of local authorities being allowed the right not only to continue to provide temporary accommodation, but also to make it permanent accommodation, if they see fit. Children will be unable to put down roots. With the responsibility under the Bill of local authorities to introduce introductory tenancies the Government need have no fear that offering a secure tenancy, subject to the introductory tenancies rule, will advantage, for example, anti-social families or families who fail to pay their rent. Local authorities would still have the right to regain possession. Those families who lost their homes because the man was self-employed and his business collapsed during the recession will be able to get on with the rest of their lives.
People are faced with so much insecurity, as all the evidence around us shows. In this debate on the Bill in this Chamber we cannot do much about the insecurity of the job market caused by the global economy, but we can do something to mitigate the insecurity that faces people, and their children, when they lose their home. This Bill, as it stands, adds to their insecurity. The Government are creating insecurity through this Bill and they do not need to do so, hence this amendment. We are not saying that all homeless people should be offered a permanent tenancy after the two years if they have not reached a certain point on the waiting list.
With this amendment we are seeking, as the Minister said, to make a distinction between symptoms and causes. It may be that some homeless families are only temporarily homeless, perhaps because their house has been burnt down and they are waiting for insurance money. That was the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, used on a previous occasion. Such a family would clearly only need temporary housing until they were able to make an independent home of their own.
Where the cause and the symptom are the same, that is to say, that homelessness is a problem by virtue of that family's need for a secure and settled home, this amendment would give that duty to local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment is reasonably close, at least in subject matter, to the first amendment that we dealt with this afternoon. However, it goes a good deal further. If one takes out some of the negatives it would appear that local authorities should provide permanent accommodation. The words:
"does not cease to he available for his occupation"
seem to me fairly close to "permanent accommodation".
As I have already explained to Members of the Committee, a critical part of the Government's homelessness reforms is removing the link between providing assistance in a crisis, when a household finds itself homeless, and allocating life-long tenancies in local authority or housing association accommodation to people on the basis of underlying long-term housing need. If Amendment No. 266A were accepted by noble Lords the whole purpose of the reforms would be unfulfilled.
I am not convinced by the argument about insecurity, and insecurity in the job market. I recommend to the noble Baroness a recent speech by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and some research which shows that this is a much overstated situation in the job market in this country. It is also overstated in the housing market, where the majority of people are in permanent accommodation, either owned by local authorities or housing associations or, thanks to the Government's policy, in homes owned by themselves.
The present homelessness provisions were intended to provide a safety net for vulnerable people who become homeless unintentionally. A safety net cushions someone from a bad experience, and allows them to pick themselves up and get on with their life. Homelessness can be a temporary experience, the result of a

811
confluence of unfortunate circumstances, perhaps temporary unemployment or the break-up of a relationship. By no means everybody who happens to become homeless at a particular point in time needs to be provided with accommodation for life, which is what is meant by getting permanent local authority accommodation.
For many years the present provisions were interpreted by the courts as imposing a duty on housing authorities to secure permanent accommodation for people accepted as statutorily homeless. This meant that acceptance could provide a fast track into a permanent social tenancy for life, often as I explained earlier, at the expense of people on the waiting list. Since the homelessness route offered such a valuable prize, it is perhaps not surprising that the number of people using it increased sharply.
Removing the unfairness of the fast-track proposals is a key aim of our reform proposals. The Awua judgment has clarified that the present provisions do not require housing authorities to secure permanent accommodation for people accepted as homeless. This illuminates one aspect of the duty but begs another question; what exactly is the present duty? This uncertainty in the wake of the Awua judgment needs to be addressed.
The provisions in Part VII, the homelessness part of the Bill, mesh with those in Part VI, the part dealing with allocation. Part VI provides a single route into social housing allocated by local authorities for everyone. Everyone's underlying needs should be assessed fairly and on the same basis. The allocation of long-term social housing should be considered separately from the emergency housing needs of people who find themselves in a temporary crisis and unintentionally homeless. Local authorities' duties under the homelessness legislation should be to provide assistance for a reasonable period to help people to make a fresh start. The two years provided for in Clause 172, coupled with the priority that such people are likely to receive on the housing register through Clause 148, is surely enough to achieve this.
This amendment goes directly against the intention of Part VII of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will not press it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I must enter into the debate on this amendment, but I certainly should not have done so had not the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, described it as being my amendment. Nothing could be further from my wish. Either she misunderstood something I said earlier or we are at cross-purposes. When she talked about her previous amendment my view was that in no way would I want to see it mandatory for local authorities to continue to find accommodation for homeless people beyond a certain period. I thought that in that period they would either have moved on to accommodation they had found themselves or the local authority would have found secure accommodation for them. When I spoke earlier I made the point—I certainly make it now—that a local authority already has the power to convert the temporary accommodation that people occupy into secure
812
accommodation if they are approaching the top of the list in terms of points. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but I raised that point and I asked that question of the department. I have had that answer from it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should welcome it if the Minister would clarify the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes. When we argued it the other night, the Minister said that it was a remote possibility but that there might be the occasional exceptional case. But if, as the noble Baroness has argued, local authorities can use their discretion to turn a temporary tenancy into a secure tenancy within a two-year period, then that family will not need to be evicted, because it is fairly close to being housed in the usual way—I hope I am putting the point fairly. If the Government were able to say that they accepted that reading of the Bill, it would go some way towards meeting our concerns. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the position put by his noble friend, which is one I would welcome, is shared by the Minister.
6 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may clarify that we are talking about the cases to which we referred in an earlier debate—those people whose points mean that they are just about to reach the top of the list. The other side of the argument on that amendment was that if undesirable accommodation were offered to people with more points, they would probably refuse it and, therefore, the people occupying it would be given it. When I put that question to the department, I was informed that local authorities have an element of flexibility, and could act in that way if someone were close to the top of the list. I did not hear that from my noble friend the Minister but from the department. He, too, may need to check that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, might have been confused, because earlier I asked my noble friend the Minister to give a commitment to make some special arrangement or concession to help authorities which were in an especially difficult situation. He gave an undertaking to look at that point rather than at the general, overall, blanket situation. I support the Part VI allocation system where homeless people earn points as does everyone else, which are the basis of the allocation. I cannot support the noble Baroness on this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may invite the Minister to help us on this. He said on a previous amendment—he has been quoted again by his noble friend Lady Parkes—that where an applicant was near the top of the list local authorities had some flexibility. Will he give us more substance as to what that would mean in practice for a local authority? Could local authorities respond to the situation in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, as one would hope?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should rather hear the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and then perhaps try to round up the debate.
Lord Monkswell: I shall try to oblige the Minister. The difficulty is that the point I shall raise is different

813
from the one raised by the noble Baronesses. I thank the Minister for reading out his brief in response to the amendment, but the department has misunderstood the import of the amendment. My understanding of the amendment is that it would require a local authority to ensure that there was accommodation available for the homeless person after the two-year period, not that a local authority should secure the accommodation that the person is currently in after the two-year period.
If the Government can understand that that is the way we understand the amendment—I am glad to receive a signal of assent for my interpretation from my noble friend Lady Hollis—they may have some sympathy with it, although it may not be framed in the best way to achieve what we seek to achieve. A local authority has the responsibility to provide temporary accommodation for a homeless family. The way the Government interpret that is that the homeless family will be installed in temporary accommodation for up to two years. A homeless family provided with local authority accommodation for two years will have little incentive to seek some other form of accommodation, at least for the first 18 months, because, thank heavens, the family has some accommodation and it is secure for two years.
I do not believe that that is the Government's intention. I believe that the Government's intention is to say to homeless families that they will be accommodated temporarily but that they expect the family to find alternative accommodation. As to the temporary nature, it may be better to think in terms of six months or 12 months. There would thereafter be a continuing requirement for the local authority to find the family other temporary accommodation.
The homeless family would not be thrown out on the street after two years from accommodation which, on the Government's interpretation, would be relatively secure. It would not be a case after two years of, "Bang, you are out on the street". It may be better to suggest to homeless families that they have temporary accommodation and that the local authority may move them every six months or every year. That will be a signal to the homeless family that the accommodation is temporary, but that there is a continuing requirement—I believe we would all accept this as a civilised society—to ensure that a family is not thrown out on the street with no where else to go, especially by a public housing authority.
If the Government could accept our interpretation of the amendment rather than what we feel is their erroneous interpretation of it, there might be some coming together of minds on it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I am afraid that I have to accept what my lawyers advise me is the proper interpretation of an amendment. The proper interpretation of this amendment is the one to which I have spoken. There is the problem of returning, as I believe the amendment would do, to the general position where local authorities would find themselves obliged to house people endlessly in their own stock, if that is how they chose to do it, and therefore de facto it would be secure, long-term accommodation, even if it
814
were not actually legally secure. I made that point earlier. People in such circumstances would have accommodation which did not give them proper security and the rights that other local authority housing tenants have, but I do not want to repeat an argument I have already gone over.
I stand firmly on my position. I believe that my noble friend Lady Gardner agrees with me. We do not wish to see people using the homelessness route to fast-track local authority housing.
The problem that I am being asked to address is what a local authority can do in exceptional cases if it sees, for example, someone just about to reach the top of the list. Of course if people come to the top of the list within the two years, their current house can be transferred from being a temporary way to resolve their homelessness to being permanent accommodation. That is fine.
I did say earlier in answer to my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Swinfen that I would reflect upon the treatment of exceptionally difficult cases. My noble friend Lady Gardner asked me about the exceptional case of someone who was so close to the top of the list that it was clear that he would receive permanent housing shortly after the two years, and what local authorities could do. There are exceptional circumstances which they could take into account.
I refer my noble friend and the Committee back to Clause 148. It provides the allocation principles—if one wishes to call them that—which underlie this matter. Subsection (2) states:
"As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given",
and so forth, in the kind of exceptional circumstances—I underline the words "exceptional circumstances"—that qualification of reasonable preference would fall to be considered by the local authority.
I want to make it as clear as I possibly can at this Dispatch Box that that is using the word "exceptional" in its proper dictionary meaning. It is not to be construed as a general green light to local authorities to go back to exercising the policy that many of them felt they had a duty to exercise; namely, to give people who were homeless a fast track to permanent accommodation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may press the Minister on the implications of his reply. I have two points. He repeated that the circumstance was exceptional when someone was near the top of the list, as though it was a peculiar one-off. What does he mean? Would he say to local authorities that that applies if several families are within one, two or three months of being offered permanent housing? We must have some guidance and I believe that the Government are obliged to provide it. Many of us are concerned about the issue. The Minister emphasised "exceptional". What does he mean?
Secondly, what happens if the authority has hard-to-let property? May it go down the waiting-list as far as it needs to in order to ensure the letting of such

815
properties under the conditions of exceptional flexibility? Can the Minister help us before we go further?
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to make similar points. We on these Benches are in considerable difficulty in knowing how far to press the amendment. So much of the Bill is dependent on guidance and on government advice as to how certain provisions are to be interpreted. The point made by the noble Baroness relates to accommodation rather than to people who are to be accommodated. As yet, I do not read into the Bill the possibility for the local authority to be using the accommodation in the best way possible; in other words, making it available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to hard-to-let accommodation being available because families higher up the list would be likely to turn it down. However, if the local housing authority has a policy of making only one offer that situation would not arise. I believe that the Minister must be clearer in assisting the Committee.
Earl Russell: The Minister continues to use the phrase "fast-track route" to council accommodation. I do not believe that that is accurate. I am not sure whether he was a Member of this House when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, moved his Motion on bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 24th July 1992. Incidentally, we are still waiting for an answer. Members of the Committee who were present will remember that, in many of the cases which we discussed on that Motion, homelessness was a tragically slow route to council accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has given the figures and we need not go into them again.
Though the constant harping on the unfairness to those on the waiting-list highlights a genuine concern, it mistakes the symptom for the disease. Clearly, the disease is the shortage of housing. If the supply is diminished enough there will always be a queue; and that queue will always grow longer. It is as though one were pulling down one block of the seats at Lords each day of the Test Match. It really does make it harder. The Minister, I am sure inadvertently, is not giving the Committee the full picture and I believe that we will get on a little faster if he does.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As regards the more general aspect made by the noble Earl, I thought that we had that argument for about an hour and a half three hours ago. I am under no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, many local authorities considered that they had a duty to provide permanent accommodation. The powerful interventions of two of my noble friends and the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches (who were Members of another place) which drew on their experience in constituency work, was reinforcement of my argument that it was fast tracking. I can confirm that in my experience a great deal of fast tracking went on. My local authority was most unhappy about it but felt
816
that it could do nothing other than what it considered to be the law. I make no apology for using "fast tracking". The fact is that many people who are homeless by their very nature are not accepted as homeless unless there are certain factors in their condition. Many of those factors will appear in their priorities regarding the allocation of housing through the normal list, which your Lordships see in Clause 148. Many homeless people will receive permanent accommodation quickly and certainly well within the two years.
I turn to the other point on which I was pressed by the noble Baroness. Perhaps one of the difficulties of trying to be helpful is that it might be easier to stand firm and not try to be helpful at all. I am being pressed to define something that is difficult to define. I have drawn the Committee's attention to "reasonable preference" which reflects the priorities which appear in the rest of the clause. I have gone back and forth so much with the Bill that I have now lost my place, but I refer to Clause 148. That sets out all the factors and the priority that is given to them. Obviously, it is difficult to give the kind of hard-and-fast definition which the noble Baroness wants. She wants me to give such a definition because she wants to trap me into opening up the whole homelessness issue and giving back to local authorities the right to fast-track people. I am simply not going to do that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for giving way. He accused me of trying to trap him into reversing the Bill and returning to where we were. On the contrary. The Minister in the other place used the same phrases which the Minister has used today. There has been no advance and helpfulness. The Minister has continued to reiterate the fact that there will be discretion in exceptional cases, including those people who are virtually at the top of the queue. We are trying to understand what he means by that and, as we are in Committee, we have a right to know what the Minister means by that phrase.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is self-evident that "reasonable preference" and "exceptional circumstances" cannot be defined in the abstract from this Dispatch Box, even in response to questions. It depends on the area, the housing list, the other demands and on how fast houses become available. Indeed, it depends on the number of priority points and ticks which the individual person has when looked at against the background of Clause 148(2). That is where the reasonable preference comes in and, frankly, I am not prepared to go any further than that.
I am underlining the point that the circumstance is exceptional. The local authority has to decide whether it is exceptional and whether, when it looks at the circumstances and the person in front of it, the condition of the house and so forth, it can decide that the person has a case which is so exceptional that it should ignore its own housing list. Local authorities draw up the scheme for the housing list according to their own rules provided that it is within the principles laid down in Clause 148(2).

817
Given the local circumstances, local authorities may draw up a rule about the parameters and the circumstances in which they consider a person to fall within the exceptional definition mentioned. In some places that may mean a short time but in others it may be a little longer. It depends on the area, the housing circumstances in that area and the circumstances of the person being considered for permanent accommodation. The local authority is asked to consider whether the fact that the two years is almost up and a person is so near the top of the list means that he or she should be granted a permanent tenancy. I advise noble Lords that I am not prepared to go further than that.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I could try to achieve some understanding of what the Government are saying. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that one of the big problems that we have at the moment is that certain people are fast-tracking their way into local authority housing. He has homed in on homelessness. According to the Minister, those people who are homeless get a fast track into local authority housing and that is bad. That is what the Minister is saying. It is bad and it must be stopped. Everybody should have equal rights in terms of time on the waiting-list.
However, the Government then point to Clause 148 which lists a number of categories to which the local authority can give "reasonable preference". Am I right in understanding that the Minister is saying effectively that homelessness, as a fast-track way into local authority housing, is wrong but the six categories of preference that are listed in Clause 148 are all right as a legitimate fast-track way into local authority accommodation?
That is further complicated because in subsections (3), (4) and (5), the Government effectively take upon themselves the ability to modify Clause 148. Therefore, the Government are saying that fast tracking into local authority accommodation through homelessness is wrong. They are proposing a different way in which to fast track into local authority accommodation. But they are also taking upon themselves the ability to change that. Is there a hidden agenda for the Government to say, "We don't like this fast tracking; we are suggesting a different sort of fast tracking", so that, at the end of the day, they can turn round and say that there will be no fast tracking at all, whether it be the Government's fast-tracking scheme or the current legal, local authority duty fast-tracking scheme? Is that a correct interpretation of the Government's position?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are in Committee and therefore we have every right to try to understand what the Minister intends by what he has said.
Lord Mottistone: That is the second time that the noble Baroness has said that this is Committee stage and we have a right to find out what the Minister means. The Minister has told us countless times what he means but, as far as I can see, that is not what the noble Baroness wants him to mean and she finds it easier to go on saying, "I do not understand". We have been 33 minutes on this simple amendment which I had hoped would be dealt with by two speakers.
818
It is the convention of this Chamber that we do not over-press. I have been on the Opposition Benches and I have irritated the party of Members of the Committee opposite when I was sitting on those Benches. But I did not go on and on like the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, have on a particular point. I have taken the view that the Minister has said the best that he can say and that that is it for the time being. There may be other amendments when the subject can be touched upon again. I do not know. But it is not within the convention of this Chamber to press quite so hard. It is rather a pity that we have taken so much time on this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a very important amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, felt that he had to make the remarks that he has just made. We are dealing with a tiny area of what may be local authority discretion in a Bill which chains local authorities to literal words on the face of the Bill. That tiny error of discretion will produce legal challenge after legal challenge. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, if he has seen legal challenges over the past few days in relation to asylum seekers, that is nothing to the number of legal challenges which may arise on this legislation unless we have a clearer understanding of what the Minister is saying.
We have pressed the Minister, as we have every right to do in this Chamber, because he has not departed from his original statement except to say that it may refer to people who are nearly at the top of the queue. I asked an innocent question as to whether that refers to people who are one month, two or three months away from rehousing or whether local authorities will be permitted to use hard-to-let housing which people on the waiting list do not want. That is a perfectly reasonable question to which Members on the Opposition Benches as well as organisations outside and local authorities are entitled to receive an answer. We have every right to expect the Minister to give us an answer. The Minister in another place was pressed on this matter and we are revisiting an issue which the Minister failed to clarify.
Therefore, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, thinks that we are wasting time. I assure the noble Lord that organisations associated with homeless people, including local authority associations, believe that this is a pivotal point. I invite the Minister to define "nearly" and to tell us whether a local authority may go down the waiting-list to let hard-to-let properties, which are not wanted by those on the waiting-list, to homeless families in temporary circumstances. I invite the Minister to tell us what he means.
Earl Russell: I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I believe that I may owe the Committee an apology for reintroducing the concept of fast tracking. But in return for that apology, perhaps the Minister will accept that if he tries to persuade the Committee by means of information which I do not believe to be true, he leads me into temptation.

819
Beyond that, the point about legal challenge has force. We may save time and public money if we probe the matter further but we shall try to be abstemious.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that I do not define the priorities listed in Clause 148(2) as giving a fast track. Those are normal priorities which should underline the way in which local authorities will run their waiting-lists for local authority accommodation. It is for local authorities, on the basis of those priorities, to draw up their schemes. That is evident and I thought that that was underlined when we discussed Clause 148. That is the point.
The noble Baroness is doing as she did earlier. She is trying to say that her amendment seeks a tiny area of discretion. I have pointed out that a proper reading of her amendment provides a great deal more than that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is putting words into my mouth. I said that the Minister had offered us a tiny area of discretion. I accept that the amendment does not do that. I am trying to find out what that discretion encompasses.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise if I misheard the noble Baroness but I wrote down that her amendment is not a tiny area of discretion. I thought she was addressing her amendment but I shall not fall out about that.
The noble Baroness now accepts that the amendment is one of considerable principle and would change homelessness policy quite radically. Here we are looking at an attempt by the parties opposite to draw from me hard and fast definitions of "exceptional". If I were able to do that, I should not be describing something that is exceptional. That is exactly why the word is used.
I draw the attention of the Committee to the basis on which local authorities could make exceptions to the general rule; that is, the "reasonable preference" which occurs in subsection (2). It is impossible to define it further. If I could do so, I should not have used that word. Local authorities must make the decisions looking at their area, the case in front of them, local circumstances and the circumstances of the person before them. It is their problem to decide what is exceptional. That is where I must leave it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I am sorry that some Members felt that it was a waste of time but I assure them that this will be a key area because, if the Minister cannot guide us on this and local authorities have different interpretations of what are exceptional circumstances, that will produce a recipe for legal challenge and judicial review. That is not desirable if we can possibly avoid it, which is what we seek to do.
I return to the substantive point of the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister cannot help us, but we will revisit the matter on Report and Third Reading in order that local authorities may understand what the Minister had in mind when he permitted local authorities a tiny amount of discretion in exceptional circumstances. It
820
relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on hard-to-let accommodation and our concern over obtaining nearly enough points. We need that guidance, as do local authorities. We have not had it and it is a legitimate and significant point. I am afraid that we must revisit the matter, however cumbersome it may seem to the Committee. I regret it, but it is necessary.
On the substantive point, my noble friend Lord Monkswell was right. The amendment does not propose a fast track into permanent council housing. It requires local authorities to ensure that accommodation continues to be available after two years. It may be in permanent council housing in the sense of it being permanent stock, or the requirement may be to ensure that families are able to continue in private rented accommodation, in housing association places or in a leased flat. There are a variety of ways to meet the need of continuing to ensure that people have secure accommodation after two years. The preferable way would be for secured tenancy.
The amendment does not produce a fast track into permanent homes. Families will still have to wait in the usual way on the waiting list. We seek to avoid an insecurity that plagues people in the housing world and the world of work. However, I do not believe that we shall get far on the matter tonight, and with the leave of the Committee I shall withdraw the amendment and hope to return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 266B not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 266C:
Page 100, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) In any case where the local housing authority decline to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 173, they shall notify him accordingly not later than 2 months before the expiry of the minimum period.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Although it still comes under Clause 172, it is less contentious than the other amendments. Nevertheless, it is important.
The amendment proposes to create a requirement for the local housing authority to tell the applicant of its intention to end the temporary accommodation duty at the end of the two years. As the Bill is drafted, authorities can end their duty to accommodate after a two-year period. However, they do not have to notify the applicant. That is inconsistent with the authorities' other requirements to give notice under Part VII. It will also result in confusion, from which will come hardship for the households affected.
A number of other provisions in the Bill require notification. For example, Clause 172(7) states that if the applicant turns down an offer of accommodation the authority must notify the applicant of the position. Under Clause 173(4) where the authority carries out a review it must give notice of the outcome of the review. There are provisions in other sections. Where a household is accommodated for a two-year period and does not

821
become ineligible or intentionally homeless or does not receive an offer under Part VI, the duty expires. However, the applicant is not informed.
Under the first draft of the Bill when it was considered in another place, there was a duty to serve notice. It has been removed and it will be helpful to understand the reason for the omission, particularly when authorities are required to notify the applicant of their intentions to continue to provide accommodation. That is the converse of the present position. It would be good practice, and we may hear that guidance will suggest that local authorities give notice. But it is not necessary to go into the detail of the confusion that can arise, for example, with people whose English may not be good or who are vulnerable in many ways. They may have mental health problems and so on. I may not be using the word "vulnerable" in its technical sense. There are people who do not understand what I find a complicated process. I suspect that if I were an applicant, with all the additional emotions which I would suffer, I should find it almost impossibly complicated. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require that where an applicant was being accommodated by an authority under the two-year duty in Clause 172, two months before that period of duty comes to an end the authority must give the applicant notice if it does not intend to exercise its power under Clause 173 to continue to provide accommodation.
Clause 173 gives authorities a power to continue to provide accommodation when the two-year duty has come to an end. It is entirely at the authority's discretion whether or not it chooses to exercise that power. It seems onerous to give authorities a statutory obligation to give notice of a decision not to do something that they are not obliged to do.
Part of the purpose of the reforms in Parts VI and VII of the Bill is to make the homelessness legislation a last, rather than a first, resort and to encourage individuals to take more responsibility for making their own arrangements for accommodation. Where an authority accepts that it owes the two-year duty under Clause 172, it will inform the applicant of that by notifying him in accordance with the provisions of Clause 164. The applicant will be aware from the outset that he is being accommodated for a two-year spell.
I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to take the initiative when the end of that period approaches. It will be open to him to make his own inquiries of the authority if he wishes to determine what the authority intends to do when the two years are up. If the authority's response is that it does not intend to use its power to continue to provide accommodation, it will be open to the applicant to make a fresh application for assistance which the authority must consider. If the applicant still meets the appropriate criteria—that is, he has priority need and is still eligible for assistance—and if there is no suitable other accommodation available in the district, the duty under Clause 172 would recur.
The noble Baroness asked why the duty to notify was removed from the Bill in the Commons. If she examines the clause and its precursor, she will notice that the whole
822
architecture of the clause has been changed. The first draft envisaged an on-going duty, terminated by the notice after one year. Now there is the substantive two-year duty. So much more has changed than just the notice. The period has changed to two years. The noble Baroness will accept that that is considerably longer. It is felt that in those circumstances the duty could reasonably be removed.
For many people there will be no need for any notice of the kind the amendment envisages. Most of them will have been offered accommodation through the housing register long before the end of the two-year period. There is, of course, no inherent reason why the person accommodated in the private sector under the two-year duty need leave the accommodation at that point. It may well be that the landlord is willing to continue to accommodate him on a continuing basis. If not and if notice to quit is served, that will be sufficient reminder that he needs to take further steps to secure his own future. We hope it will be by seeking his own accommodation and solution or, if that fails, applying to the local authority under the homelessness provisions of Clause 172.
I hope that that explains why we decided, when altering the rest of the clause in a major way, to change this provision. When we issue guidance on the operation of the new legislation, we will draw authorities' attention to the need to ensure that people rehoused under Clause 172 are fully aware of their position right from the start. I hope that that is a better way forward. With that explanation, perhaps the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister says that the architecture of the clause has changed. The length of the duty may have changed. I do not follow that it has led to such a substantial change in the approach to the matter that there is a difference with regard to an applicant's potential confusion.
I accept that it is important that the applicant has his position clearly explained to him. However, it seems to me that the local housing authority will have to keep records. It must do so in order to operate the provisions. With modern technology one can have diary reminders. I should have thought it not inappropriate to share those reminders with the applicant. We are back again to what the guidance will provide. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 266D not moved.]
Clauses 174 and 175 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 176 [Duty where other suitable accommodation available]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 102, line 46, after ("accommodation") insert ("which meets the needs of the applicant in terms of affordability and size, and is accessible to, and meets the needs of, any disabled person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the local authority discharges its duty to homeless people in priority need by satisfying itself that other suitable accommodation is available the accommodation meets the needs of the household including any disabled member of the household.
The clause allows local authorities to discharge their duty towards homeless people in priority need by satisfying themselves that suitable accommodation is available in the district. It is important that that accommodation meets the needs of the household, in particular any disabled members of the household.
In practice local authorities could satisfy themselves that suitable accommodation is available by being aware that local lettings agencies have vacant properties or that local private landlords have vacancies. Their only duty is to provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances in any attempt the applicant may make to secure such accommodation. Without some further regard to the needs of the household, in particular those with a disabled member, there could be considerable difficulties.
It is important that local authorities are aware of actual properties which would be appropriate for the real needs of the homeless household. Simply being aware of agencies having vacancies would not be adequate and could lead to homeless households having nowhere to go. A disabled person may well have very specific requirements for housing. Those could include access to the property and facilities within it, safety aspects of the property, location of the property near facilities they attend, and other issues such as access to transport or storage of equipment required because of the person's disability. Many general vacancies which lettings agencies may have are unlikely to meet those requirements. Therefore, the local authority must be aware of and have regard to the particular needs of the disabled person so that it can ascertain whether alternative accommodation which is available would be suitable.
Lettings agencies, or private landlords, cannot be expected to be aware of whether their property in general would be suitable for a disabled person. They will often have little expertise in disability issues and limited comprehension of the housing needs of disabled people. There is no national standard concerning, for example, accessible housing for people with limited mobility. I have been looking recently in London for wheelchair-accessible accommodation as part of my job. I received details of at least 300 units. From most of the particulars I could not tell whether or not they were accessible. Occasionally I could do so from a photograph. From telephone conversations with the agents, I boiled the search down theoretically to one flat in a block of flats which I was told was wheelchair accessible until I arrived to view it. I am sure that the flat was accessible once one got into the building; but there were steps from the street up into the block and so, alas, I am still looking.
Local authorities must satisfy themselves that suitable accommodation is actually available for the disabled person in order to discharge their duty. Otherwise they will simply be advising disabled people about accommodation which may not be suitable, causing the disabled person to have to spend large amounts of time and energy inquiring about and looking at inappropriate properties. As many disabled people have mobility limitations, and using transport can present difficulties, that is even more problematic than it would be a for a non-disabled person.
As the proposals currently stand, not only could a disabled person spend much time looking at properties which are not appropriate, but in desperation he could accept a completely inappropriate property. In the long run that could have endless consequences not only for the independence and quality of life of the disabled person but also for the duties, responsibilities and costs of the social services.
It is important therefore that the duty of local authorities ensures that the individual requirements of disabled people are taken into account when the local authority is considering whether there is suitable alternative accommodation available for that person. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendment. I was interested in what the noble Lord said about there not being a national standard; for example, for accessible housing for people with limited mobility. We heard the noble Lord's personal experience. I certainly know of that lack from trying to find a wheelchair-accessible hotel bedroom. One frequently embarks on an interminable hunt.
There are various definitions of an accessible standard. It is defined in a variety of ways by different organisations and government departments. Perhaps it would be a good thing for the government departments concerned and the disability organisations to get together to seek to arrive at an agreed acceptable standard of accessible housing for people of all disabilities. It would then be much easier to match people and property. It would assist us to ascertain what suitable housing is available, how much there is, and where it is.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, or the noble Baroness. I agree with them. I could not have put them better.
The point I wish to make is that the local authority may free itself from a duty to house the applicant if it can satisfy itself that other suitable accommodation is available in the district. We have heard about the pressure that local authorities are under. What concerns me is that the local authority may be rather easily satisfied. That is why I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is vital.
It is material to the amendment to probe the word "district" in line 47 on page 102 of the Bill. The housing benefit authorities, I know, treat Rhyl and Llangollen as being in the same district although the rent levels and housing patterns are very different. If I were disabled

825
and living in Llangollen, I should be in some doubt—if offered accommodation in Rhyl—whether it was really in the same district. I should be grateful if the Minister will assist us on the point.
Baroness Hamwee: With regard to that last matter, I had intended to raise the definition of "district" at another point in the Bill and ask how it relates to the ability of the Secretary of State, when exercising his regulation-making powers, to make different provisions in different cases and for different areas. One is accustomed to seeing the term "areas" in connection with regulations, and "district" seems a natural term in connection with housing. However, I wonder how they relate to one another.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I appreciate the concerns of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Earl. This amendment would require that other suitable accommodation which was available in the district (under Clause 176) must meet the needs of the applicant as to affordability and size, and also meet the needs of, and be accessible to, any member of the household who was disabled.
These are of course very proper concerns, and I endorse the underlying sentiment. But this amendment is unnecessary because Clause 176 already provides that that other accommodation which is available must be suitable, and it is well established in homelessness case law that suitability must extend to all the aspects which Amendment No. 267 seeks to address. The Homelessness Code of Guidance already refers to the need to ensure that any accommodation provided meets the needs of disabled persons where necessary, and we shall be repeating that advice in the revised code of guidance that we shall issue after the passage of this Bill.
Additionally, we are taking a power in Clause 183 which will enable the Secretary of State to specify, by order, other matters which must be taken into account in determining whether accommodation is suitable for someone. We have not yet reached a final decision on precisely where we need to use this power, but we would not hesitate to use it to clarify that the type of factors referred to in Amendment No. 267 must be taken into account if it was evident that in practice local authorities were not doing so.
I was asked about "areas" and "districts". The Bill envisages that a local authority would exercise functions across its district. So the "district" is the district of the local authority.
I hope, given that assurance, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend has not told the Committee how the local housing authority will make certain that the accommodation is suitable, particularly bearing in mind that the estate agents to which it goes probably will not know themselves. During my career I have been in estate agency. The object of the estate agent when letting property is to act for the landlord and find a tenant as soon as possible. You include all the
826
good points. If some aspect is particularly bad, you try not to mention it, but if asked must do so under the Estate Agents Act, put in place by the previous Administration, which in one small aspect, although not yet tested, is defective.
Is the local authority to go round all the estate agents and obtain details of all the properties? How are authorities to satisfy themselves that the property is suitable? That is the wording in the Bill as drafted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure I understand my noble friend's problem. I do not think local authorities have to go round establishing that every property they might consider is suitable for a disabled person in the generality of cases. I should have thought that when they have a case in front of them in which either the applicant or a member of his family is disabled, in that circumstance they have to satisfy themselves. I do not think that we can ask local authorities to assume that every applicant will require disabled facilities. It is the applicant in front of them for whom they must be satisfied the accommodation is suitable.
I understand the point that my noble friend makes. As a fall-back position, as it were, I indicated that there were powers in the Bill that the Secretary of State could take if we discovered that local authorities were not being at all sympathetic to people who were disabled. I find it hard to believe that local authorities would take that view. However, if they did so, the powers are there. I should have thought it a fairly easy thing to do in what will be a limited number of cases where disablement is a major factor and where the accommodation has to be such that it suits disabled persons. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with that explanation.
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend had said when he first replied that local authorities had to make certain that the accommodation was suitable for an individual disabled person, I should have accepted that. He neglected to say so. I am glad I pressed him a little further. He has now clarified the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 267A:
Page 102, line 47, at end insert (", or for authorities in London, in the Greater London area").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 267A, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 268D with which it is grouped and with which it is designed to be complementary. I must apologise to your Lordships for moving amendments to a housing Bill, and hasten to profess that I do not pretend to be a housing expert, as so many of your Lordships are.
The effect of these amendments would be to allow a local housing authority in London to place a homeless person or an asylum seeker in any London borough or anywhere in the Greater London area and not just in that authority's own area. I should perhaps declare an interest as a council tax payer in Westminster, because I understand that these amendments, if accepted, would

827
reduce the tax burden in Westminster and perhaps in other London boroughs too. But my remarks are made with Westminster largely in mind.
It seems that Westminster suffers from an unusually high average rent per household, and it also attracts very much more than its fair share of asylum seekers. Average rents per week for temporary accommodation in Westminster seem to be three or four times more expensive than in boroughs outside London and quite a bit more expensive than the rest of central London. Westminster's private rented sector is one of the largest in the country, currently comprising some 35 per cent. of the total housing stock. It has, however, traditionally suffered from a distinct polarisation between the top end and the bottom end of the market. Even at the bottom end, rents are relatively expensive, often above housing benefit thresholds, with tenants consequently experiencing rent restrictions. So although the council is committed to making more use of the private rented sector, it simply will not be able to access sufficient properties in Westminster to meet the needs of the homeless.
So far as I can see, these amendments would not be to the disadvantage of other London authorities or authorities elsewhere, or of course to the homeless generally. I am advised that they would be of advantage also to the social services budget. So I hope that they will be regarded as sensible. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly uneasy about these amendments. I know that they have the Westminster situation in mind, but they appear to allow local authorities to discharge their duty under the Bill by pointing to the fact that there may be suitable alternative accommodation somewhere else, outside their area. Why stop at Westminster? Why stop at the London boroughs? If this argument is valid, it is valid for Manchester and Liverpool and for the adjacent authority to my own city of Norwich, South Norfolk. Before 1977, local authorities used to do precisely that. In authorities in what has become North Norfolk social workers would put people on a bus with the bus fare to come into Norwich and tell them that Norwich would house them. That was why we passed the 1977 Act in the first place. The noble Lord's amendment would revisit that situation by allowing local authorities to churn the homeless outside their boundaries and expect some other authority and the resources of another authority to take responsibility for them.
I recognise the problem but do not feel that this is the right way to respond to it. My understanding is that the vast majority of the other London boroughs resist the amendment. They fear that it would simply allow Westminster to export its problems rather than respond to its duties.
Baroness Hamwee: I too have reservations about the amendment. I recognise that it may not just be a Westminster problem. The authorities around an airport will suffer similar difficulties. In the local authority finance regime that we have, it is a matter of assessing the requirements of particular authorities. I believe that that is how the matter is approached. I do not know
828
how Bromley, for instance, could know whether suitable accommodation were available in say, Havering or Hillingdon, or authorities in other parts of the perimeter of London. It will be difficult enough for authorities to assess the availability of suitable accommodation in their own areas.
For those reasons and because of the implications for an applicant who could be required to travel immense commuting distances for work and whose children could be required to travel very large distances if their education is to be maintained in the same school or inevitably they must undergo a change of school, I join with those who ask the noble Lord to think again about whether this is the right approach.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson seek to amend Clause 176 so that a London borough could apply the test of the availability of suitable accommodation not just to its own area but to the whole of the Greater London area. Amendment No. 268D would amend Clause 189 to provide that, in respect of authorities' homelessness responsibilities under the whole of Part VII, the London boroughs' joint area should be treated as one district. We come back to the definition of "district", about which I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Similar amendments were tabled in another place and my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing gave a commitment to discuss them with the local authority associations. That commitment has been fulfilled by discussions at official level, and it is evident to the Government and the associations that we share the view that it is not realistic to treat the London area as one district for the purposes of Part VII of the Bill. So I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend. I do not know whether wittingly or unwittingly he has given me perhaps the one opportunity I shall have this evening to be on the same side of both the noble Baronesses who have just spoken.
It is no small task for a local authority to determine what constitutes suitable alternative accommodation in its own area, as the last debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Swinfen illustrated. It requires a good knowledge of the local market and ongoing monitoring, which is what many good local authorities do.
Amendment No. 267A would, in effect, require London boroughs to determine whether there is suitable accommodation in another borough's area. I do not believe that that is realistic. One could not expect Hillingdon—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave the example, which I reaffirm—to identify such accommodation in, say, Barking.
Amendment No. 268D goes wider and seeks to make all London boroughs areas of one district for the purposes of the homelessness provisions. The same arguments apply to this proposal as to the amendment to which I have just spoken. London boroughs would still need to make judgments about the availability of accommodation in other boroughs.

829
In addition to the difficulty of determining availability of accommodation in other boroughs' areas, this proposal would have implications for assessing "local connection", for dealing with referrals and, in short, for all aspects of the homelessness part of the Bill. If it were incorporated into the Bill, a person applying to, say, Westminster, who had previously resided in, for example, Bexley, would be the responsibility of Westminster—or any other London borough to which he may choose to apply. Under this proposal, an applicant could claim a local connection in any or all of the London boroughs if London were to be one district.
While we recognise, as my noble friend outlined, that some London boroughs have particularly acute problems with homelessness, we do not believe that those problems will be solved by simply turning all the boroughs into a single district. We believe that this proposal would render Part VII of the Bill virtually inoperable. I know that that is not the intention behind the amendment. I understand the intention, but I fear that I must say to my noble friend that as a result of the discussions which followed on the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, clearly the solution proposed here would not be the right one and would pose many more difficulties to authorities than it would provide solutions.
With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, especially to my noble friend the Minister for revealing the result of the consultation process which took place on similar amendments tabled in the other place.
It has given me some pleasure to have produced the harmony that we enjoyed between the noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite and my noble friend on the Front Bench, even if I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that I feel that she was being a little rough on me when she suggested that I was about to put people on the bus to Norwich. I certainly did not intend to do that.
Perhaps I may go back to those who inspired the amendment and consult them. I may bring forward a slightly different amendment at another stage but I hope not to trouble the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): If Amendment No. 267B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 267C or 268.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 267B:
Page 103, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In that case, their duty is to furnish him with such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 267C. Both amendments are in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I hope not to disturb the peace that has broken out.
The purpose of the first amendment, which refers to furnishing of advice and assistance, is to strengthen the duty to make advice and assistance sufficient to secure that accommodation will be made available and to remove the discretion that the authority needs to provide only advice and assistance which the authority considers to be appropriate.
The duty under Section 176 is limited. It introduces a high degree of discretion—ironically so, given that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend and myself, have been arguing for greater discretion in certain areas with regard to the provision of accommodation. However, it introduces a lot of discretion and potential variation between authorities in the assistance that they consider to be appropriate. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, they might discharge that duty by providing only a very minimal degree of advice and help. There are no standards by which the duty will be measured.
Of great concern is the fact that an applicant who fails to take up suitable alternative accommodation may be deemed to be intentionally homeless. If the authority has provided fourth-rate advice and assistance, it seems to me that that would be a more than unhappy outcome.
We have already referred to the assumptions on which the advice obligation is based: that local authorities will have a full knowledge of the local market; that accommodation will in fact be available; and that the local authority may be able to provide tangible assistance in the form of rent deposits and rent guarantees. I do not feel it necessary to repeat the arguments used in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on an earlier amendment. I simply explain that the amendment is to inject a degree of objectivity.
Amendment No. 267C seeks to ensure that advice and assistance remain available for a period of two years. In cases where accommodation does not last for the duration of the duty or where there is insufficient advice and assistance, the applicant can return to the authority and expect further help. If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, the duty to accommodate under Section 172 would arise. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I support the amendment which I regard as extremely important. I am concerned that under the clause as it now stands a local authority can do very little—perhaps virtually nothing—yet still claim that it has conformed to the letter of the law.
Clause 176(1)(b) says that the authority must be satisfied that,
"other suitable accommodation is available for occupation by him in their district. In that case, their only duty is to furnish him with advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances in any attempts he may make to secure such accommodation".
It is possible to envisage a local authority simply putting a list of local accommodation into the hands of somebody and saying, "Get on with it". So far as I can see that would mean that the authority had conformed to the law. I would like to see an appropriate clause

831
in the Bill to ensure that the intention of this excellent amendment is adhered to. The amendment says that the authority's duty is,
"to furnish him with such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available".
I am sure that all Members of the Committee want to achieve that result and secure that suitable accommodation is available. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this important amendment.
Earl Russell: Subsection (2) of Clause 176 is another occasion where the local authority is judge and party in its own cause. It has only to satisfy itself. Most of us can do that; but we do not always satisfy other people. I am a little unhappy about the weak duty of "advice". One has uncomfortable visions of Dutch uncles. I also see a parallel to one of the most ungenerous provisions in all government legislation with which I have had to deal. The Minister may have been a little surprised to hear my praise for the Social Fund earlier this evening. I can assure him that normal service has now resumed.
The provision I had in mind is the one in the Social Fund provisions covering people who are too poor to receive assistance. The Social Fund has hitherto given them "money advice". That has always struck me as a peculiarly heartless provision. If this subsection were to give the local authority the power to do just about that, then it would join it in the list of the most unfortunate provisions we have had. There must be more duty on the local authority than to satisfy itself. I hope that the Minister can reassure us.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendments Nos. 267B and 267C seek to amend the whole purpose of Clause 176. Amendment No. 267B would replace the whole of subsection (2) by requiring the authority to furnish,
"such advice and assistance [to an applicant] as will secure that suitable accommodation is available",
rather than simply advising and assisting the applicant in his attempts to secure such accommodation. In addition, it re-states the requirement that such accommodation must be "suitable".
Amendment No. 267C extends the duration of an authority's duty by requiring it to continue with the duty to furnish advice and assistance under Clause 176(2) until the date that the authority carries out, or could carry out, a review under Clause 173 of its power to secure accommodation.
Clause 176 is an essential part of the Government's proposals for reform of the homelessness provisions. It is in effect a halfway stage between the full homelessness duty and the purely advisory role. It relates to a local authority's duty in cases where other suitable accommodation is available for occupation by an applicant in its district. In that context "suitable" covers a range of attributes, including whether the accommodation is of the right size; whether it is, where necessary, affordable for someone on housing benefit;
832
whether the landlord is willing to take someone with children; and other points of suitability we discussed earlier.
If the authority is satisfied that such accommodation is available, Clause 176 limits the authority's duty to furnishing the applicant with such advice and assistance as it considers appropriate in any attempts the applicant may make to secure that accommodation. As authorities develop and improve their own private rented sector strategies, they will become familiar with what property is available to let in their area and will know where to direct people. They may forge links with landlords or agencies and may assist people by offering rent guarantees where that is appropriate. We encourage local authorities, through the housing investment programme, to have regard to the contribution that the private rented sector can make. Local authorities also have a general duty under the 1985 Act to consider the condition of housing in their area, including the private rented sector, at least once a year.
In brief, local authorities will already be familiar with the private rented sector in their areas through the rent deposits and rent guarantee schemes; through private rented fora which a number of local authorities have set up in order to forge relationships between private sector landlords and letting agents; through nominations where they enter into deals with landlords, agreeing, in return for nomination rights, to underwrite deposits, sort out benefit claims and so forth; through empty property strategies, operated by over 100 authorities; and through their work with housing associations as managing agents. There are therefore a number of ways in which a local housing authority will have a good idea of what the housing position is in its area.
The fears of the right reverend Prelate that Clause 176 is a way by which authorities can escape their responsibilities are not justified. Clause 176 requires the individual to take some responsibility for arranging his own accommodation. But it also requires the authority to be confident that the accommodation is available in the area. That is the point I was making in relation to how an authority will know what accommodation is available in its area.
Also, the authority must give the individual the requisite support. In context, simply handing out a list of advertisements taken from the local paper would seldom be regarded as sufficient to meet the requirements of the legislation unless the advertisements were extremely extensive and covered all kinds and variations of property in the market. By and large one would expect a local authority to do a great deal more than that. I thought the right reverend Prelate was going to suggest providing a copy of whatever was in the local paper and a handful of 10p pieces in order to phone up the agencies concerned. I can assure him that we would certainly not consider that to be an adequate way to fulfil their advice and assistance responsibilities.
We have already discussed the issue of "suitable" accommodation. The term already appears in subsection (1) and the appropriate definitions are found in Clauses 182 and 183. The term is not therefore needed in subsection (2).

833
In summary, under Clause 176 the individual has some say in arranging where he is to live. The clause also allows the local authority to take full advantage of all the housing resources available in its area. Amendment No. 267B would require the authority, rather than the applicant, to secure that accommodation is available. The element of choice is therefore lost to the applicant and the whole duty falls onto the shoulders of the authority.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 267C, seeks to specify that the duty to provide advice and assistance continues until such time as a review may be carried out. That is unnecessary. For the most part, other suitable accommodation is likely to be in the private rented sector on an assured shorthold tenancy. As I have already mentioned on a number of occasions, research shows that, on average, such tenancies run for well over two years and for approaching three years. It will clearly be in the authority's interest to continue to rely on accommodation in the private rented sector for this purpose.
Perhaps I should also make it clear that, if the applicant becomes homeless again from such accommodation and the same considerations apply, the authority's duty under Clause 176 may recur. There is therefore no need to specify the duration of the responsibility on the face of the Bill.
I know that this is not the intention, but the amendments would cancel out the proposals for this halfway stage between someone looking after himself and being considered homeless. I am sure we all want to encourage people as far as they possibly can to take some responsibility for their own housing accommodation. If that means getting some advice and assistance from the local authority on the way to do it, so much the better. It is certainly far better than being considered homeless and having to be dealt with entirely by the local authority. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister continues to repeat the point about getting people to help themselves. I have no moral objection to that point. But does the Minister understand that these people may well have become homeless because, for some reasons which may have been perfectly good, they found that very difficult to do? Indeed, in many cases they may find it as difficult to help themselves as the Minister and I find it to convince each other.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is a fairly compelling argument for the noble Earl because we seem to have been unable to convince each other on a number of occasions. However, I am sure he agrees that it is important that so far as possible people are encouraged to help themselves. That is what the provision does. If there are problems with the individual—if he has, let us say, a mental health problem—and he is not in a position to help himself, the local authority would have to help him in those
834
circumstances. I am sure the noble Earl will be able to remember better than I that that provision is there in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I share the aspiration that people should be encouraged to help themselves—but also helped to help themselves. Indeed, I would go further and, to the extent that I might have detected it in what the Minister said, I more than agree that the prevention of homelessness should be a major objective of the Bill. However, it is not. Subsection (2) does not make the connection between the advice being appropriate and whether or not it helps to secure accommodation. What the Minister said could be regarded as amounting to, "Tee-hee, we, the local authority, know where the accommodation is but we are not necessarily going to tell you".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure whether it is instant conversion but perhaps I can help the noble Baroness a little and indeed other Members of the Committee who have spoken by saying that we are currently considering whether an amendment is needed to the wording of this clause to clarify the circumstances in which and the extent to which it is realistic for local authorities to rely on the availability of other suitable accommodation. We intend to put beyond doubt that the level of advice and assistance should reflect the level of ability, disability or vulnerability of the applicant in each case. That reinforces the answer I gave to the noble Earl. The level of advice and assistance must be sufficient to enable the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available. The Government intend to put forward amendments for consideration at the Report stage. I hope that that answer will go a long way to help those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.
Baroness Hamwee: I think the Minister is trying to help those who are anxious to get on with the next piece of business. On that basis, I shall save the rest of my argument either for later this evening or for the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 267C not moved.]
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Balkans: Policy
7.25 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for a coherent Balkan policy after the withdrawal of the Implementation Force (IFOR).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Baroness for making it to this debate too, as well as everything else, starting with Nigeria and carrying right on round the globe in all directions. In everything I say, I shall take for granted what is indeed the case; namely, that the armed forces of all the countries concerned in IFOR have been doing an extremely constructive and good tempered job in spite of very great political difficulties.
I come to my arguments. In the Balkans the United States presidential election is riding all our horses. I take as text a remark made by a Serbian television commentator:
"the success of the peace process on the territory of the former Yugoslavia depends primarily on whether further moves by the international community are founded on facts or not".
Well, so far they have not been. "History" is one fact; "justice" is another. What is not a fact in ex-Yugoslavia is the state of the polls or of party funding as between Mr. Clinton and Senator Dole.
Let me speak first about the international arrangements. Mr. Portillo says that he cannot conceive of something like IFOR being under anything but NATO command, which currently means American command. For future use we must indeed conceive of other commands. NATO is ill at ease today because it was not designed for this kind of operation. The North Atlantic Treaty itself envisages action only in the case of an armed attack on one of its members. No such attack has taken place, and NATO is thus acting outside the terms of its founding treaty. The North Atlantic Council meeting of this month in Berlin bleakly announces:
"We are in Bosnia".
A fait accompli. That does not change the treaty. NATO is in Bosnia because it is Bosnia; the United States is in command because it wants to be in command.
The OSCE would have been better. This is the kind of thing we set it up for, and our Ministers often refer to its authoritative status. Both Russia and America belong, which the United States sees as a disadvantage, though most Europeans see it as an advantage. Then also it is argued that since NATO has the guns and the money and OSCE does not, OSCE command is impossible. This is pure "impossibilism": all that is needed is the agreement of the NATO signatories to place their assets—not their name—at the disposal of OSCE, and carry on from there. Of course the right organisation above all others would have been the UN direct. But this is the second time now that a well-meaning but hyperactive United States has been allowed to use its great power, despite its massive arrears of payment, to seize the Security Council by the scruff of the neck and tell it what armed intervention to approve.
Another matter for forlorn doubt is the way disarmament is being handled in Bosnia. What are called "light weapons" do not come into the picture at
836
all: they are not to be reduced by anyone. Yet, as the House of Commons Defence Committee put it in its recent report:
"Rearming one former warring faction would appear to be contrary to the purposes of the Dayton Agreement".
Precisely.
The Bosnian Serbs are required to disarm to a certain level. Now "disarm" does not mean that the heavy weapons have to be destroyed, as you would expect: they can also be put on permanent public display or exported. That is very convenient. What "permanent public display" means, God knows. But because the Bosnian Serbs are to be left with a level far higher than that of the Bosnian Croats and Moslems, the latter are to be rearmed by the United States and Turkey, at the expense of Islam worldwide, and trained largely by Turkey, so as to bring them up to the level the Serbs are allowed. That is frankly crazy. Even if the equality is correctly calculated, monitored and enforced, it is still a deliberate injection of new arms into the cockpit of war. The two sides should have been required to disarm to the same really low level, but California needs its arms industry as Candidate Dole does not cease from reminding it and Candidate Clinton, who had hardly forgotten. Perhaps the Government will ask why on earth they are going along with it.
The tragi-comedy of the war criminals is another product of the blind haste with which the whole enterprise has been conceived. Fifty people have been indicted of war crimes and, on the direct orders of Admiral Smith, the United States Commander-in-Chief of IFOR, not one has been arrested. Arresting them might risk American lives, and that comes first—no American body bags. So Karadzic and Mladic, who still control the Serbian entity in Bosnia, are not to be apprehended unless anyone happens to come across them. Come across them? They are the president and defence minister of the Serbian entity. Karadzic has been unanimously adopted by the ruling party for another presidential term.
Tomorrow, Mr. Goldstone, the South African chief prosecutor of the Hague war crimes court, will publish more evidence against them. That is pure charade. Besides, little enough effort has ever been made to bring the Croatian and Moslem war criminals to book, and it is now presumably too late. The best one can say is that it all ought to have been thought out before the court was set up. Who is surprised? These people are national heroes and some will certainly be elected. Then what?
Nobody can fail most ardently to wish these suffering peoples honest and peaceful elections. The Dayton Agreement provided that OSCE should monitor the preparations and say when it would be safe to approve September for the date. OSCE has just reported that it would be, but at the expense of two resignations from the monitoring team who did not believe a word of it and who would not accept the order of the American head of the team, Mr. Frowick, to report what they did not believe.
What do our Government think about American policies in the surrounding countries? Otherwise put, what do they really think America is up to? I have put

837
down a great many Questions on this and have always received the answer that that is a matter between the US and the countries concerned, but I shall ask again.
Croatia permitted Iranian arms shipments to transit, contrary to the UN embargo, keeping half of them for itself. The US ambassador in Zagreb, on instructions, turned a blind eye. But nobody remembered to tell the CIA in Zagreb that its head of mission had been instructed to connive at breaking international law (the UN embargo), so it began to observe the ambassador. The matter eventually came out in Washington to mingled horror and jeers. Is that story true or false? It must be remembered that the government of Croatia were also told by Senator Dole on a visit there that the US would unilaterally break the embargo, and it did. Her Majesty's Government knew all about that and kept silent. Why so?
Albania, where there have recently been elections that the OSCE observers determined were improperly conducted, has one of these mysterious bilateral security arrangements with the US, and unmanned aerial vehicles are stationed there to conduct surveillance over most of ex-Yugoslavia. Is it true that at one time the US gave the resulting intelligence to the Moslem and the Croat sides and kept it from its NATO allies? It has been alleged, and it would be good to know. Albania now claims to have been promised priority entry to NATO by Secretary-General Solana, presumably in return for providing the US with those facilities.
The United States has installed a public information office in the self-proclaimed Albanian statelet which is actually part of the Serbian region of Kosovo. Mr. Bakoshi, its self-proclaimed Prime Minister, has said,
"the role of this office is very significant and important, and we hope it will play not only the role of an observer and informer, but also have a further dimension, more significant and important than this".
In Belgrade recently, Mr. Christopher urged the Serbian Government to grant autonomy to Kosovo, but instead, some say, Mr. Milosevic will go there this week to unveil a statue to Prince Lazar, the Serbian folk hero who fought against the Turks in Kosovo 500 years ago.
Macedonia claims to have a new agreement which gives the US the same position there as it has in Japan, South Korea and Panama: in other words, permanent occupation rights.
The Hungarian Government have said that the US can have the use of air bases, in return for which they too will be allowed to join NATO quite soon. When the Hungarian Parliament complained that they had approved no such thing, the government denied the fact. But one may wonder. And US Air Force officials have even been examining airfields in Romania.
That completes the circle of neighbouring territories in which the United States is setting up bilateral military arrangements outside NATO. So the question keeps asking itself—I assume as much inside the Foreign Office as outside—is there a long-term American plan, or is all really just the hyperactive confusion it seems to be?
This question leads to a wider but even more immediate one: what is US policy in the Middle East and southern Europe in general? If it exists at all, it seems to have two legs: the promotion of lawless Israel to decisive military ascendancy throughout the wider Middle East through undiminished economic subsidies and the provision of advanced military hardware; and the securing of oil supplies for the US domestic market from both the Gulf and the Caspian. The subjugation of Iran is a subset of each "leg".
These days, the United States is smiling with peculiar fervour upon Turkey. It favours Turkey for the Caspian pipeline. It grants Turkey tremendous arms deals. It supports Turkey in its sabre-rattling in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. It invites and enables Turkey to achieve a surveillance posture over all Israel's neighbours as far as Iran. And it is Turkey it appoints to take on the arming and training of the Bosnian government forces. The United States says that this "equip-and-train" programme will take 800 million dollars and has promised 100 million dollars. Saudi Arabia has provided 50 million dollars, and something seems promised from Malaysia. Bosnia, not surprisingly, says it needs 2 billion dollars. The Bosnian President has just bestowed the Golden Order of Kulin Ban on the Turkish President, and the Bosnian chief of staff has decorated the commander of the Turkish Army with the Lily of Gratitude. Perhaps the Minister knows what these imply. Moreover, Turkey and Croatia itself now seem on the verge of a military alliance.
But Turkey is at the moment a country without a government. It is in fairly dire trouble with the International Monetary Fund; and the democratic deficit is almost total. The Turkish army, which has at the moment a position vis-à-vis its Parliament quite at variance with the positions normally required by NATO membership, is ready to rule as long as it is allowed. The Turkish army is in fact the present government. The President of Israel, on his way to visit the Turkish President last week, told an Israeli journalist travelling with him that neither the Turkish army nor the President would allow the Welfare Party—that is, the Islamic party—to form a government. That party did best in the recent elections. So we are presumably witnessing the umpteenth end of democracy in Turkey. One cannot help wondering whether this was a wise American choice of second favourite son in the Middle East and the Balkans.
Why does the US insist on the installation of an Islamic government in Europe, armed by Islamic powers—Iran in the past, Turkey now? Why does it need to call up the most tremendous ghost in all European history: the ghost of the European war of liberation itself? Before the peoples of Europe could begin liberating themselves from one another, they had to fight for 500 years to liberate themselves from the Asian occupier. Maybe we do not remember this very clearly in our Atlantic island—and of course the Americans do not remember it at all—but this long struggle was a large part of what defined the European identity. The long battle against the Sublime Porte was waged by NATO's own predecessor alliances: the

839
Knights of Malta were the NATO of the 16th century; and the final European liberation from Asian rule was within living memory.
All in all, it is hard to think of a more unfortunate, thoughtless and provocative concatenation than Turkey in Sarajevo; Turkey in full military alliance with Israel invigilating Syria, Iran and Iraq; while the US Air Force is stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Republics, Oman, and now even Jordan. With all that, and with the Israel-Arab peace process dead, with Libya and Sudan demonised as well as Iraq, Syria and Iran, it looks a bleak future indeed.
I shall try to keep within my 15 minutes, so I end by saying that the European members of NATO need to get their act together to prevent the lasting result of this UN-approved NATO intervention being a series of US client states in Europe's third world and in the Middle East. Never have the security and foreign policy interests of the Europeans more obviously converged.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for tabling this Unstarred Question on this very important subject. At the moment IFOR has only six months to go on its current mandate and we need to pay attention to what happens thereafter.
I do not entirely follow the noble Lord in his analysis of the situation. I do not have his sources, but I have spent much of the past few weeks in Budapest dealing with a number of people from the region. From my experience of teaching people from the region over the past few years, I am conscious of how European a power Turkey is. I think that I am right in saying that Turkey's current president was born in Bosnia. We have 3 million Turks living in the European Union. The Kosovo problem, which is a European problem, is deeply connected with European Turkey. The question therefore is how we handle Turkey. It is a complex question which matters much to our interests, although I agree that the Americans sometimes assume that Turkey is a strategic ally in a much simpler case. I think that Turkey is an essential element in any stable peace in south-eastern Europe.
Having said that, I should like to concentrate on what happens in Bosnia after the end of December. We now have the Dayton Accord. Its military provisions have effectively been put into force, but I think that we all accept—I am sure that the Minister will agree—that most of its civilian provisions have not yet been put into effect and that the likelihood that that will happen within the next six months is low. Many of us have considerable doubts about whether it would be desirable to have elections in September. A senior member of the Croatian Government is quoted as saying, "If you want elections in September, you can have them. They will be fraudulent, but you can have them if you like". It would be deeply unfortunate to hold elections which were not well organised and which did not represent an effective contribution to a long-term settlement.
We all understand how little progress has been made on resettlement. We all understand bitterly how little has been done on the question of war criminals, but at least
840
we now have an effective force there. As the Minister will recall, many Liberal Democrats, myself included, said at the outset in 1992 that we should send military troops there. Now, at last, we have done so, but we are in danger of removing them before we have begun to achieve a peaceful settlement or a peaceful order which will last for more than a couple of days after we leave.
We are in severe danger of being driven by the pressures of American domestic politics and by the timetable of the American presidential election. We are told that the Bosnian elections have to be held in September because that is part of President Clinton's pledge. Another part of his pledge is that he will get the American troops out by December. I was glad to hear a number of American officials suggest that not necessarily all American troops will leave in December. Clearly, a great deal of discussion is now taking place between governments about the post-December strategy. If we are to have an effective post-December strategy, clearly we cannot follow the US lead. We have to be actively involved in influencing American policy. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that we are actively engaged in doing that.
After all, this is a major test for NATO. The assembling of IFOR has been a great success for NATO, for a changed NATO, and for the kind of alliance which NATO, perhaps enlarged, may be in the process of becoming. However, if the outcome of IFOR is a failure for NATO, and is seen by the public in the United States and in major West European governments as a failure for NATO, that would be disastrous. I am sure that we all share a commitment to a successful transition for NATO from a Cold War alliance to a major part of a new structure in the European order. We will not make that transition successfully unless this Bosnian exercise is seen to be a success, in which case it will have to take a good deal longer.
It may be that the statements by British and French Ministers that we went in with the Americans and we shall go out with the Americans have in some way to be fudged. It may be that we find the Americans over the border in Hungary and only partially still in Bosnia in the new year. I have no doubt that the military forces will have to stay in Bosnia well into 1997 and perhaps beyond. I have no doubt that that has to be done on a coherent European basis, closely allied with the United States and carrying the United States with us as far as we can, but recognising that we may not be able to carry a new American administration as far as we would like.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the consultations that are currently under way. Perhaps I may say on behalf of my central and eastern European friends that I hope that those consultations are not only within the five-nation contact group or even only within the mechanisms of the European Union. Many of the associated states of eastern and central Europe have now contributed forces to IFOR. This is one of the areas in which we might use that odd and inefficient vehicle of structured dialogue for some useful purpose to make sure that those who are

841
part of IFOR feel that they are contributing to the important process of trying to restore credibility to the European order in that highly divided country.
I expect that we all agree that we are not happy with what is happening in the Bosnian Serb area. I have recently read reports of continuing tension between the government in Pale and the rather more liberal forces in Banja Luka. We are not giving enough support to those who want to shift from Karadzic to those who offer an alternative view. I am sure that we all agree also that we are not entirely happy with the current direction of the Croatian Government. I am glad that the Council of Europe has helped to maintain pressure on President Tudjman. Clearly, we shall have to maintain pressure on him for a very long time. Further, there is a need to continue to exert pressure on the Yugoslav Government. The noble Lord mentioned the Kosovo problem. That problem is in the background. We desperately hope that it will not explode, but how we handle the Bosnian conflict will help to determine whether the situation in Kosovo can be contained or whether, in its turn, it will explode at a later stage.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little about the process of consultation and the willingness of our Government and others to consider what will happen well into 1997 and to involve all of our partners in IFOR in that process. It is also important to explain that to our publics. There is a need to maintain public support for the exercise in which we are engaged, as a result of which we may spend more money, maintain more men and suffer more casualties.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing this debate. I am sorry that it has attracted so few speakers. This is a big and important subject. The Question is couched in fairly wide terms. However, I wish to concentrate on Bosnia and the post-Dayton arrangements. I shall not range as widely as my noble friend and speak about Turkey or Israel. I shall focus attention on the response of the British Government to some of the problems in Bosnia and say a little about the international community. While I recognise that United States domestic politics may be important in affecting policy in the region, I am sure that when replying the Minister will say that she is not responsible for the position of the United States Government. Therefore, my questions are very much directed to the Minister as a representative of the UK Government.
I noted with interest the comments of the Secretary of State for Defence in another place two weeks ago. He said that it was important to consider the need for continuation of a military presence after 20th December when IFOR is due to pull out. He also said it was important that the international community should develop an overall political strategy to deal with the many problems of securing peace in Bosnia. Further, he believed that any military operation should be a NATO operation and should include United States forces. But he placed great stress on the need for a political strategy. He said that what was most needed was an overall political strategy. As part of that, consideration should
842
be given to whether any military operation was necessary. It is rather difficult to disagree. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on what her right honourable friend said and put more flesh on the bones or skeleton to which he referred.
Before I turn to that strategy, there is a need to assess the current situation in Bosnia. It is clear that a good number of things are going wrong. The future looks rather bleak. However, I begin on a rather more positive note. After four years of war we at least have peace. The IFOR force of 60,000 plays a crucial role. I am grateful to the 10,000 British troops for their contribution. I believe that my noble friend has already expressed his gratitude.
My honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was recently in Bosnia and praised the role of the troops in stabilising the military position and keeping peace between the various factions. He also praised what he described as a unique experiment with the ODA in which the military advanced civilian proposals of a humanitarian nature and the money for the schemes was then released on the spot by ODA officials. That was a most effective channelling of money in Bosnia. He believed that it was paying handsome dividends. I add my support to the efforts of the Minister's department in that respect.
However, I am afraid that I must be rather gloomy and negative about a number of other matters. First, all sides are breaking agreements so far as concerns human rights. The Bosnian Serbs' brutal self-imposed ethnic cleansing in Sarajevo in which 25,000 Moslems were forced out is completely unacceptable. They have also stopped many Bosnian Moslems from returning home. In Mostar Croatian gangs control half the town. There is no contact with the Moslem authorities in the other half. That takes place in a context where, under Dayton, there is meant to be a Croatian-Bosnian federation. Thousands of refugees have been refused the right to return home. There is no free movement of people in what was Bosnia. No wonder the OSCE is in despair. There is no genuinely free media that will be required if there is to be an informed electorate in the elections planned for September.
Those who are wanted by the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague have not been apprehended. That is true of individuals from all three parties. Mr. Radovan Karadzic may no longer give interviews to the western media. But obviously he still plays a leading part, pulling most of the strings behind the scenes in the Bosnian Serb Parliament. As long as these people remain free the process of political healing cannot easily begin. I ask the Minister whether IFOR should now play a more significant role in securing the arrest of these people. Her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said that there will never be a full peace until people who have committed atrocities are brought to justice. If he is right about that, I ask the Minister how these people are to be arrested if not by the international military presence currently in Bosnia.
I turn to the elections. Preparations are fraught with problems. It is hard to see how those problems will be resolved by September. There is no proper electoral roll

843
because hundreds of thousands of people who were on the roll are deceased. That opens the way to ballot fraud. Can the Minister say what plans have been made to try to avoid ballot rigging? One must also ask whether the votes to be cast will be free of intimidation. What is being done to try to set up and support a free media during the period of the elections? The OSCE has a huge task ahead of it in that respect. What happened in Mostar last month when the elections had to be postponed does not augur very well for September. Presumably, Mr. Izetbegovic will repeat his demands that all refugees who are not returned home should be allowed to vote wherever they are.
What does the international community intend to do if Mr. Karadzic defies the Dayton provisions that he cannot stand for public office and puts himself forward as a candidate? Again, I should like to know from the Minister what pressures are now being put on President Milosevic, in spite of any protestations he might make, to work to secure Mr. Karadzic's removal from the political scene.
We in this House very much hope that the elections can go ahead as planned. To be forced to delay them would be damaging. Only when they have taken place will it be possible to provide all-Bosnia institutions such as a central bank. But elections which are neither free nor fair would probably be worse than delayed elections. I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
That brings me to policies for the future. The unitary state which was backed by Dayton still looks horribly fragile. While it is easy to blame Mr. Karadzic and the Bosnian Serbs, I regret to say that the nationalist elites on all sides are at fault. President Tudjman has cynically exploited his advantage and appears to have little intention of making the Croatian/Bosnian federation work. Surely it is time to take a tougher line with the Croatians. Here I must endorse my noble friend's criticisms of the United States.
One can but hope that the election results will strengthen the position of the multi-ethnic group, led by Mr. Silajdzic. However, even if its position is bolstered, is it not likely that the Serbian and Moslem-Croat parts of Bosnia will simply go their own separate ways? The worrying question, as I have already suggested, is whether the Moslem-Croat coalition can hold together. If it does not, then Bosnia will be left as a tiny rump state in which the forces of authoritarian fundamentalism could take hold.
I ask the Minister, against this worrying scenario, whether she agrees that there are three or four elements that must be central to a successful policy in the region? First, all the refugees must be allowed home. It is pathetic progress that only some 10,000 out of around a million people have been able to return to their homes. Secondly, economic reconstruction must begin and be implemented quickly so that some degree of prosperity is restored. Thirdly, there are stories that the armed forces of all three parties are now consolidating. Unless all the parties are disarmed there is a great risk that the
844
fragile peace will not last. Fourthly, the international war crimes tribunal must try the indicted leaders rather than the small fish who have been arrested so far.
Does the Minister agree that the costs of international action to support these policy goals would be much smaller than a Balkan armed conflict that starts all over again? The efforts of the international community, while considerable, do not go far enough. Is not a further push at permanent peace needed rather than just half-way measures? I know the Minister will not wish to make a commitment to IFOR 2 after December, but without such a commitment—and even more important commitments to the policy objectives I have outlined—we could end up with NATO or the WEU committed in the Balkans for much longer at costs, not just to us, but with consequences to the region which are hard to contemplate.
8.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tabled a vital topic for debate this evening and I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in what she said about it. It has allowed an enormously wide debate on a range of complex issues. I shall do my best to tell your Lordships what I can, but no one will be surprised if I say that I cannot possibly answer for the United States Government at the Dispatch Box. I was not surprised particularly at the tone of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, but I doubt the veracity of some of the things he has read and heard which he repeated in your Lordships' House tonight. I shall suggest to the United States ambassador that he should look most carefully at the noble Lord's remarks. What he will do I cannot say but he may have more chance than I have of answering the noble Lord.
Bosnia has rightly dominated the discussion. So let me seek to outline the strategy which we have pursued and which we intend to follow in the future. I shall pick up at least some of the questions that have been asked.
Our first objectives in Bosnia have already been achieved. I cannot forget that just one year ago fighting was still raging across Bosnia. My staff, our troops and others there were watching, sometimes almost helplessly, as people were driven from their homes. The horrors of war filled our front pages.
There was a very real danger 12 months ago that the conflict might spread beyond Bosnia. That picture changed quickly with the Dayton peace agreement, signed in Paris. With the help of the IFOR troops, Bosnia has been transformed. We have an end to the fighting which everyone worked so hard to achieve. With silent guns, and armies which are being demobilised, whatever the noble Baroness said, we can begin other vital works such as clearance of the minefields because until they are cleared ordinary people cannot go back to normal work. We are busy helping with the rebuilding of power lines, making sure that power supplies are connected to villages and thence to people's homes. There is a positive sign now that the people of Bosnia can look forward to peace and hope for the future rather than the conflict and despair of the past.

845
The challenge has been, first, to secure and then entrench the hard won peace. The inaugural meeting of the Peace Implementation Council, hosted by the Prime Minister in London last December, focused on the implementation tasks, both military and civilian. The talks established clear structures to monitor compliance and to co-ordinate the efforts of the international agencies on the ground. I know the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has some doubts but I hope that by the end of my remarks he will see that the civilian as well as the military effort is beginning to work. It may require a visit such as the one I shall make in a couple of months for him to see how much difference we can see now compared with four or five months ago. Carl Bildt was appointed the High Representative in London and he has done sterling work in identifying the potential problems and proposing remedies. It is not easy, even when you can see potential remedies, to get the parties to agree, but it is remarkable how much advance has been made. I do not think that without Carl Bildt's threat to postpone the April Brussels donors' conference meeting, for instance, the parties would have released the prisoners of war on time. He put his foot down, the prisoners of war were released on time, and the donors' conference then went ahead, enabling us to do more in terms of reconstruction.
Perhaps I may pick up a remark the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made about giving encouragement to the people of the Republic of Serbia based on Banja Luka as opposed to those directed by Pale. I have seen what is happening in the area looked after by Banja Luka. I was there just a week before Mr. Kasagic its prime minister, was removed. I found not only a great deal of reconstruction taking place with the help of the British IFOR troops, but also that the opposition parties are alive and well to an extent, as I was pleasantly surprised to see, that debate is beginning to take place. I think I am right in saying that there were seven different parties gathered around the lunch table with me in Banja Luka on that visit in early May. Things are changing there. Although there was a setback for a while with Pale trying to dictate terms to Banja Luka, those people are still committed to the efforts they are making. With our encouragement and sane policies, that will continue.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Wallace, referred to the role of the NATO-led implementation force, IFOR. We all know that stability on the ground is the prerequisite for a lasting settlement, about which the noble Baroness asked. It is certainly necessary to build the trust and confidence to make the settlement stick.
Under the terms of the Bosnia peace agreement and Security Council Resolution 1031, we are all aware that IFOR's mandate expires in December. IFOR's military mission will have been successfully completed by then. What follows and how it follows are matters to be discussed. I cannot tell the House that tonight because no decisions have been taken. We know that the way in which IFOR has worked has been a great success. So we have learnt from that exercise. The ceasefire has held. The opposing armies have withdrawn behind
846
agreed lines of separation, and heavy weapons have been withdrawn to barracks. That is why I say we should not be distracted by speculation or comments from America or even another place about what happens post-1996.
All troop contributors must remain focused on the challenges, of which there are so many, as has been explained in the debate, for the next six months. IFOR has an important role to play in supporting the OSCE election preparations and maintaining a secure environment for civilians throughout Bosnia. I shall return to the OSCE in a moment. Ultimately, only the Bosnians themselves can make peace pay. Only they can create a lasting peace. We can help to police it for a time, but they have to want to give up the fighting. That is why we are concentrating to such a degree on seeking to make reconstruction work.
Let me say, on the issue of reconstruction and the work we are doing—I thank the noble Baroness for her comments—that we are deeply involved. This year alone the UK will spend some £50 million on reconstruction. That is both our bilateral work and our work with the EU. We are working not just in electricity generation and distribution, telecommunications and the gas supply in Sarajevo; we have identified projects in both the Federation and in Republika Srpska. We are already working on them. I have seen the practical benefits to both entities from a single project which links the two. If either party were to interfere with that project, both would suffer. We are seeking to encourage practical cross-border co-operation, integrated networks and communal reconciliation.
The UK is also planning to provide longer term assistance through the Know-How Fund in sectors where we have particular expertise. For the time being it is clear that the contribution we are making in reconstruction, building on four years of significant humanitarian help, is most valued.
I have a senior aid expert working with the Royal Engineers in the Multinational Division South West. We are working with ODA engineers in the international infrastructure management group. A tremendous amount is going on. I had better not dwell on it tonight; if I did I would not have time to answer some other questions.
Assistance to refugees has been part of ODA's work. We have ensured not only humanitarian action; we have helped to get the refugees restarted back in the areas from which they originally came. That is done through the Shelter Housing Trust Fund and the repatriation programme.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the rate of return is slow. But the figure is not 10,000. Seventy thousand refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes. I believe that the flow will increase as the Dayton Agreement becomes stronger and stronger week by week. That is what we are saying, but we cannot force that return. Mrs. Ogata, the head of UNHCR, has been most careful to try to provide for the return in an organised manner so that representatives of the displaced community can go back to see what the situation is and then take the rest of the community back with them.

847
Obviously, it is not yet possible to recommend the lifting of the temporary protection for hundreds and thousands of Bosnian refugees currently in other European countries. But progress is gradually being made. That is an important step forward. The interface between Carl Bildt and UNHCR is important. It helps to bring together the political and the practical. That is another sign and another way in which we seek to make peace pay.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness talked about IFOR post-1996. We all know that the principal tasks being carried out now—the zones of separation, the withdrawal of forces, the maintenance of freedom of movement, and so on—are essential. But we must never think of IFOR as responsible for governing Bosnia. It has far more to do than that. It contributes 55,000 troops in total. Britain contributes about 10,500 ground forces and a further 1,000 maritime and air forces. Our force is second in size only to that of the US. All NATO member countries are contributing. In the coming months IFOR's primary task will be not only to maintain a secure environment within which the civilian assistance and reconstruction of which I spoke continues but also to ensure the successful completion of the election process.
I pay a tribute to General Michael Jackson who finished his duties as IFOR commander in the multinational divisional headquarters last week after six months. I wish to quote just one comment he made in handing over to his successor:
"I can say with great confidence that the armies are back in barracks. We have a very good handle on what their size and activities are, and a fear of renewed fighting between armies has, I believe, been removed".
That optimism is indicative of the progress I have seen in the past six months. It is a great tribute to the British troops serving in the Multinational Division in Bosnia. I believe that it is right that we continue that process. But we must do it with an eye to the future. We are learning from that experience to inform us of the sorts of decisions we should make for the future, which I cannot prejudge in answering the debate tonight.
Certainly, we find that IFOR, with its clear political mandate, larger size, robust rules of engagement, meticulous planning and solid chain of command, has been able to do in six months a great deal more than UNPROFOR, however hard it tried and however good were the soldiers and British commanders serving in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about arms control. It is clear that the priority, in which we are playing our full part, is the implementation of arms control. There is a great deal of detail on that, and I am prepared to give it to the noble Lord. Britain is playing its full part.
I believe that the noble Lord said, if I noted him correctly, that there was a deliberate injection of arms into this cockpit of war. The United States train and equip policy is to equip the Bosniac-Croat Federation armed forces to a standard capable of self defence. However, it is entirely separate from NATO and IFOR and will not involve IFOR troops. It will focus on the
848
Federation and not on the Moslems alone. It will be carried out by a private contractor on behalf of the United States.
We are not opposed to the train and equip programme, but we believe that the most effective way of achieving long-term stability in the region is through the arms control negotiations provided for in the peace agreement and recently agreed upon for the parties. That is why we will not participate in the programme. The US train and equip programme is not yet moving forward. The defence law which needs to pass the Federation Assembly is blocked and the Bosnian Government have yet to meet the requirements of removing all foreign forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the role of Turkey. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned it several times. Certainly, Turkey has a major role to play in establishing stability in the region. However, Turkey is a member of the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board which provides political guidance to Carl Bildt, the High Representative. We have been working extremely closely with it on that issue. I do not believe that all its influence is negative, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, appeared to believe. I believe that we have to involve it and have to stay very much in touch.
Perhaps I may say briefly but sincerely that the international criminal tribunal will work long after the end of IFOR's mandate. We are determined that that will be a success and we are helping in a number of different ways. The tribunal is receiving increasing co-operation from the parties. That may reduce the need for some of the transporting of suspects to The Hague, the carrying out of aerial reconnaissance, foot patrols and so forth. The work is going on, and it is going on apace.
As regards Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic, they are indicted war criminals. It is unacceptable that they continue to be free and, worse, from time to time exercise power and influence in Republika Srpska. IFOR will detain Karadzic and any other indicted person with whom it comes into contact. But it is not part of IFOR's mission to hunt down Karadzic. However, we welcome IFOR's role in helping to create a secure climate for elections. That means that indicted persons will find themselves at ever greater risk of arrest, which is absolutely right. We shall continue to press Milosevic on the matter and will continue to build up the moderate Bosnian Serbs.
Many other issues have been raised but the final one that I wish to mention is the elections. We are working hard and supporting the OSCE to ensure that the elections which will now go ahead on 14th September can be a success. No one expects Westminster-style conditions to prevail. Much progress has been made in achieving the necessary social conditions for elections to take place. I believe that those elections can successfully take place. We have been to the fore in encouraging the free access of all the parties to the media during the election campaign. The High Representative and the OSCE have secured agreement on fair access to prime TV. We shall do all we can to

849
ensure that the parties stick to the agreement and that the code of conduct of all media activities is respected. We have given some £3 million to the OSCE voluntary fund for elections and have seconded people to the mission. We are working hard to make sure that the elections are a success. That is the next milestone down the road.
The future well-being of the region will rest on a partnership between the international community and the parties on the ground. What follows after the elections and after 1996 we cannot yet say. However, we know that the commitment of the international community is not in doubt. More than 1.2 billion dollars has been pledged at the Brussels Conference. The September elections will go ahead. The route ahead must be carefully considered by the international community. The Peace Implementation Mid-Term Review Conference held in Florence produced a useful report and it is agreed that we should have another conference at the end of the year.
In the meantime the key to the future of the region is reconciliation. Britain is playing a major role in ensuring that peace will pay. That is the only way forward if there is to be a just and lasting peace in the Balkans, and that is something we are determined to achieve.

Housing Bill
8.26 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 176.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 103, line 3, at end insert ("unless on completing their enquiries, the authority are satisfied that because of disability, impairment or vulnerability, the applicant would have difficulty in securing alternative accommodation, in which case the authority shall be subject to the duty under section 172.").
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 176 a local authority will not have a duty to secure even temporary accommodation for a homeless applicant in priority need where it judges that there is suitable accommodation available for the applicant's occupation in the district. People who have particular disabilities or who are vulnerable for other reasons are likely to have difficulty in securing such accommodation themselves. Alternative available accommodation is likely to be in the private rented sector.
Accommodation in the private rented sector is often particularly unsuitable for certain disabled or vulnerable people. For example, there is little private rented accommodation especially adapted for people who have particular requirements with regard to physical access. Nor does private rented accommodation offer the support services which might be required by certain vulnerable groups; for example, a warden for older people or support staff for young care leavers. Many private landlords are also unlikely to be willing to offer tenancies to individuals who have disabilities or support needs due to the extra work which may be involved.
Private rented accommodation is almost exclusively let on six-month assured shorthold tenancies, particularly when the tenant is not previously known to
850
the landlord. That temporary nature also makes it unsuitable for many disabled or vulnerable people. Those who require adaptations to their homes to enable them to live independently will be unlikely to be able to obtain them in short-term tenancies. In order to apply for a disabled facilities grant to assist with the cost of adaptations, a person must confirm that he intends to occupy his accommodation for at least five years.
Temporary accommodation is also unsuitable for those who may be living independently for the first time, having lived in institutional or group homes. It is an essential part of settling into the community for the person to feel a commitment to his home. That commitment is likely only if the tenant has a sense of security about the tenure and the support he receives.
Vulnerable and disabled people are also likely to have particular needs in order to build up informal and formal support networks; for example, older people may require meals on wheels or home help services. Many vulnerable people rely on friends or family to provide help either with physical tasks or through emotional support. Young vulnerable people living independently for the first time need to build links with the community for friendship, support and employment. It will be much more difficult to develop formal and informal networks of support in temporary accommodation. For older people and those with disabilities, the physical and emotional upheaval of frequent moves which temporary private rented accommodation may require also makes such accommodation particularly unsuitable.
Certain disabled or vulnerable people are also likely to be less able to go through the process of obtaining accommodation in the private rented sector. Most accommodation agencies are not able to cater for the needs of disabled or vulnerable people. Most do not have audio information and many do not have accessible offices. For many vulnerable people it would be physically impossible to obtain accommodation through those agencies. For others, the stress or complexity of the process could have significant detrimental effects, worsening their mental or physical condition.
In order to ensure that vulnerable and disabled groups of people do not have to go through the stressful experience of finding private rented accommodation and coping with the insecurity that living in such accommodation entails, this amendment proposes that for homeless people in those specific groups, local authorities should have a duty to secure that accommodation is available for occupation without the requirement to determine whether suitable alternative accommodation is available.
Before we broke for dinner, I believe that the Minister said that he is inclined to look reasonably favourably upon vulnerable groups and may bring forward a later government amendment. Therefore, I hope that I shall receive a sympathetic response to the amendment. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support this amendment. I took note of what the Minister said just before we broke for dinner. I believe that he will take in a great

851
deal of what we are saying in these amendments. However, I should like to emphasise to my noble friend the particular problems of the mentally ill in this general area of homelessness which he may bear in mind in particular when he brings forward his amendments.
It is extremely important to take on board the fact that all too frequently people who are mentally ill are not capable of looking after themselves. It may be that they are in a state in which, if they have suitable medication, they are kept satisfactorily under control in order to lead a reasonably normal life. But every so often either the medication does not work or they stop taking it and all sorts of things may go wrong. I shall not bother the Committee further with that because we have spoken of it in other debates.
However, it is not fair to expect those people to be able to look after themselves independently in a home unless it is arranged suitably for them. It is extremely important that local authorities should see them as a particular charge. I accept absolutely that that is covered by the Bill, but there are various areas where the powers of the Bill which are provided to ensure that people like the mentally ill are cared for are not sufficiently strong. Some of those have been picked up by these amendments and there are other areas.
I have been relying on the guidelines which my noble friend has mentioned. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that he realises that, in this area, there will need to be some rewording of the Bill. But it is not right to think that somebody who is mentally ill will be able to behave exactly like someone who is not mentally ill. Nor is it right to think that anybody who is showing signs of not being able to cope with life will be able to do so if you quietly tell him to get on with it and encourage him to look after himself.
Therefore, when my noble friend thinks about the amendments which are to be proposed for this part of the Bill, and when he looks again at other parts of it, I hope that he will give special thought to the particular problems of the mentally ill. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, people who are handicapped in other ways are at least able to say what they think in most cases but people who are mentally ill quite often do not have that capacity. They need to be cared for in particular.
Lord Dubs: I support this amendment. I should declare an interest as a non-executive director of a mental health trust in South London. As such, I am very much aware of the needs of people who suffer from mental illness and their need for stable housing circumstances as the best way in which to come to terms with their illness.
It is too easy for people to be overlooked in the system when they are mentally ill because they may not manifest themselves as being ill. However, they may not be able to do all the things necessary to prevent themselves from becoming homeless or to secure accommodation for themselves. Therefore, some of them need to be treated with great sensitivity consistent
852
with their illness in order that they can be helped into housing and can stabilise their lives. I believe that this amendment would be helpful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendments Nos. 268 and 268ZAA both relate to vulnerable people who may find it difficult to secure accommodation which is available. I welcome the opportunity which has been afforded to me to clarify what the Government's position is on this important issue.
The first, Amendment No. 268, would add to Clause 176(2) a duty for the local authority to secure that accommodation is available under Clause 172 if it determines that the applicant would find it difficult through disability, impairment or vulnerability, to secure alternative accommodation. Amendment No. 268ZAA is more specific in that it defines the groups of people to whom the authority should not have a duty to furnish advice and assistance where other suitable accommodation was available.
In short, these amendments seek to ensure that the most vulnerable people are not simply left to make their own attempts to secure other suitable accommodation but, rather, are treated as special cases and thus eligible for assistance under Clause 172.
It is not the Government's intention that such people should be left to fend for themselves. Instead, consideration is being given to the wording of Clause 176, to put beyond doubt that the level of advice and assistance furnished by the authority should reflect the level of vulnerability or disability of the applicant in each case. Clearly, it would not be reasonable in every case to expect a person who is vulnerable, as defined in Clause 168(1)(c)—which refers to people who are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness, handicap or physical disability or other special reason—to be as capable of securing accommodation as a person who is totally able-bodied and fully able mentally. Therefore, it is right that the extent of the advice and assistance given should match the degree of help needed. The Government need to ensure that the wording allows for this. Once it is resolved to our satisfaction, the issue can to a large extent be addressed in guidance. Nevertheless, that guidance needs a firm foundation on which to rest.
The Committee should also be aware that provisions on allocations in Clause 148 also ensure that vulnerable people receive priority or, if very vulnerable, additional priority in the allocation of permanent housing under Clause 6. Clause 148(2) states:
"The scheme shall he framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to ….
(e) households consisting of or including someone … who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future".
I believe that on both the homelessness point and the allocations point we have tried to cater for people about whom the Committee is concerned.
It is an important issue and one on which we are determined that the right provisions will be put in place. I listened to the cases outlined by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. They are examples of the kind of situations we have in mind. It is vital that the drafting

853
of the Bill secures the right result. I have already said that we are sympathetic to those considerations and will seek to put forward amendments for consideration by your Lordships at Report stage. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I am delighted to receive that assurance and, with the leave of the Committee, shall withdraw my amendment. However, I may be tempted to put the amendments down again to ensure that the Minister comes up to scratch. I have not heard it from him, but in the 20 years I have been in your Lordships' House I have heard from other Ministers that they will put down amendments at the next stage of the Bill. Lo and behold, nothing materialises. When I am promised a moon in the sky, I like a moon in the sky and not a dark and thundery night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 268ZA:
Page 103, line 3, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of this section "suitable accommodation" shall not include a women's refuge.").
The noble Earl said: This is another in the series of amendments which probes what is meant by "suitable accommodation" under Clause 176. It deals specifically with the issue of women's refuges. The amendment seeks reassurance on one narrow point, but I hope that it is in order if I also use it to explore a little further what the position of women's refuges will be under the new legislation.
Before doing so, I must thank the Minister's noble and honourable friends for a good deal of co-operation on the subject since the debate on the Green Paper. I am grateful for it and the position is clearly much improved, possibly even totally improved.
There are certain points on which one wishes to be clear that women who have suffered abuse will be held to be in priority need, either because of their children or because of vulnerability. It should be made clear that they will not be found to be intentionally homeless. We hear a good deal less often of it than we used to, but regrettably it still occasionally happens. We also need clarification that it will once again be made clear to local authorities which find the point particularly difficult that it is an area in which entitlement to help with housing does not, cannot and should not depend on local connection. It is an area where both the immediate temporary refuge and the subsequent longer-term housing often need to be out of reach of the pursuer. In the light of recent cases, however, one has to say that that sometimes needs to be quite a long way away.
The most specific point on which I need to ask for assurances arises from the judgment in the case of Awua. It is a recent judgment of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House which has caused considerable confusion in housing law. I have here the report of the judgment in Awua. What worries those concerned with women's refuges is that a local authority
854
should not be able to say that because a woman is in a refuge she is in suitable accommodation and therefore need not be the responsibility of the local authority. Apart from any interest of the woman, it would also be a disaster for the refuge because the problem of silting up is acute. Refuges always have to be ready to receive acute emergency cases at any hour of the day or night, so they cannot have people staying long term unless there is an acute medical need. The need to move on is important.
It seems to me that the trouble with the Awua case is that there were too many reasons why the noble and learned judge decided it as he did. It would have been necessary to have several other test cases to establish the extent of the meaning of the case, but since the law is now changing it will not be necessary. For the purpose, I rely on the last paragraph of the judgment, page 226 at letters F and G. I leave out the names and addresses for obvious reasons, not wishing to breach too much confidentiality. The judge said:
"Section 60(1) does not require that it should have been reasonable for Miss Awua to continue to occupy [the temporary accommodation] for any particular length of time and it is sufficient in this case to say that it would have been reasonable for her to stay there until she was able to move to [the permanent accommodation]".
In that case, the problem arose from her having refused the permanent accommodation.
One can distinguish the cases by saying that a refuge and temporary accommodation are not the same. One can also distinguish the cases by saying that the last paragraph bears specifically on the point on which I ask for reassurance. I hope that that reading of the case is correct. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I warmly support my noble friend. I hesitate over the word "warmly" because it is sad to have to consider the subject at all. I should declare an interest. I am a member of the Council of Management of Refuge which provides both refuges and other services for victims of domestic violence. Through my membership of that body, I am well aware of the need for accommodation not only to be kept confidential but, as my noble friend said, frequently not to be local. It is almost a misnomer to refer to it as "accommodation"; it is far more than that. My experience of women's refuges is that good refuge services will provide counselling and advice and specialist help both for the women and the children. As the Committee can imagine, the children often require a good deal of help to work through the experiences that they have had to suffer. It is important that the accommodation and the accompanying services are not clogged up and remain available in the hope that they can be used to enable clients to move on and start new lives.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment would insert a new subsection (3) into Clause 176. That subsection would provide that a women's refuge shall not constitute "suitable accommodation" for the purposes of that clause. I am able to offer the noble Earl considerable reassurance on the point.

855
Clause 176 relates to the duty of the local housing authority where other suitable accommodation is available for the applicant in the district. The concept of suitability was introduced into the homelessness legislation by the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and the provision is to be re-enacted in this part of the Bill.
Noble Lords will by now be fully aware of the Department of the Environment's Homelessness Code of Guidance, which is to be revised in the light of this Bill and brought up to date. It incorporates advice specifically on the use of women's refuges, stating that they, along with night shelters, bed-and-breakfast hostels and direct access hostels,
"are not designed to be lived in long-term".
In the case of the Awua judgment the accommodation occupied by Miss Awua was not a woman's refuge; it was normal private rented accommodation. If I understand the noble Earl's point correctly, I can assure him that the words of the Awua judgment do not bear on the subject of woman's refuges. To go a little further, Members of the Committee may be aware that case law associated with Sections 58 and 69 of the Housing Act 1985 has established that a person in a "hostel" can be homeless for the purposes of Part III of the 1985 Act. Indeed, recent research on the impact of the 1981 code of guidance found that nearly all authorities—I have the figure of 99 per cent. in brackets, which is almost all of them—would usually consider an applicant homeless who faced violence or the threat of violence within the home. That is looking at it from both sides of the spectrum. When in the house subject to domestic violence she (unfortunately it is largely "she") would be considered homeless if she faced violence or threat of violence. If she went to a refuge then, as I said, she can be considered homeless for the purposes of Part III of the Act.
Our code states that,
"refuges should be used for the minimum time necessary".
The Government have no plans to change their stance on that. In short, the Government and the guidance recognise that women's refuges should not be regarded as suitable for long-term accommodation.
In the light of that, the Government agree that women's refuges should not be regarded as "other suitable accommodation", although they can clearly provide an invaluable place of safety for those faced with domestic crises or some form of violence or abuse. They do, and will continue to, serve an essential function. Their role will be reiterated in the new guidance and the Government will consider whether there is a need for that to be covered in an order made under Clause 183. However, the definition to be used in any such order would clearly need careful consideration.
I hope that I have managed to persuade the noble Earl and the noble Baroness that there is no need to specify on the face of the Bill that women's refuges are unsuitable or that their use does not constitute the
856
discharge of an authority's duty under Clause 176. With all those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that extremely helpful and careful answer. As we are speaking for the record, to be read by people outside the Chamber, I should be grateful if the Minister could spell out that the new guidance will continue, or strengthen, what the old guidance said on the points of priority need: that victims of domestic violence are not to be taken to be intentionally homeless; and that they frequently need to be housed outside their local authority areas. If the noble Lord will simply confirm that the new guidance will say what the old guidance said, or better, my relief will be complete. I shall be grateful if he can go that far.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl, so to speak, wishes jam on it. I believe I said that we have no plans to change our stance on the department's code in regard to refuges. However, I am happy to confirm as regards the two points he made that we have no plans to change and that the new guidance will encapsulate the old guidance.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I asked for jam on it and I got it—nothing ventured, nothing gained! I thank the Minister warmly and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 268ZAA not moved.]
Clause 176 agreed to.
Clause 177 [Referral of case to another local housing authority]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 268ZAAA:
Page 103, line 20, leave out ("domestic").
The noble Earl said: The Minister may be extremely surprised to hear that in an amendment concerned with violence I propose to leave out the word "domestic". The amendment arises from the issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, ventilated at an earlier stage of the Bill. I refer to anti-social tenants, unstable neighbourhoods and unsafe areas. The provision would extend the protection given to victims of domestic violence to those who have to leave an area for fear of violence from other residents or other people in the neighbourhood. That happens, and the phrase "being run out of town" is not unfamiliar.
I wonder whether the Minister can see some way, if not this way, of dealing with the problem. I suspect that he will say what I said to the noble Baroness earlier: that this is a genuine problem; I do not think that this is the solution. In that case, we all need to sit together to discuss the solution because none of us seems to have come up with one. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I support the amendment. It is a problem. Many of us have met or heard of people who face the difficulty. I can think of one example from when I represented a south London constituency in another place. A woman fled from a fear of violence in her

857
neighbourhood. She sought rehousing in the borough of Wandsworth. There was a serious danger that she might be sent back to the borough from which she had fled because she had some housing entitlement there. That would have exposed her to the very dangers from which she sought to escape. Although that occurred some years ago, it is an example relevant to the concerns which give rise to the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We discussed this issue to some extent in Committee last Wednesday with regard to an amendment to Clause 158. On that occasion, in the context of discussing a proposed amendment to Clause 158, I explained that my right honourable friend, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, had written to the honourable Member for Greenwich, confirming that he would bring forward amendments to extend the domestic violence provisions in Part VII. That intention covers not only the provisions in Clause 158 but also those in Clause 177. As I explained last Wednesday, because we rather changed the timetable at Committee stage, I was unable to table those amendments in time, but it remains my intention to do so at the next stage.
The purpose of the amendments before us is to widen the range of possible risk of violence that a homeless applicant may face in a particular locality if a local authority were to refer his case to another authority in whose area that locality was situated.
As drafted, Clause 177 restates the relevant provision in the 1985 Act. It provides that an authority may not refer a homeless case to another authority if the applicant or a member of his household would run a risk of violence, or threat of violence, from someone who might, but for the violence, have been expected to live with the applicant; or, someone who formerly lived with him or her. We accept that this rather narrows the range of persons who would fall within the scope of the test of whether there is a risk of violence.
We intend to broaden the range of possible perpetrators who should be taken into account by reference to their relationship or former relationship to the applicant. However, as I said when speaking to the amendments on Clause 158, we do not accept that the provisions should be so widened that they would extend to any perpetrator. As I explained in my contribution on Clause 158, there are other legal remedies available which applicants could pursue in more general cases of violence. I am talking about violence or abuse outside the house. Threatening behaviour and assault are, of course, already punishable offences under criminal law. It would not be unreasonable for someone experiencing violence outside the home to pursue available legal remedies in the first instance. A court would be able to attach a power of arrest to injunctions obtained by social landlords where there has been violence or a threat of violence. Taking together my remarks on Wednesday and my remarks today on the rather narrower point about domestic violence and its definition, I hope that the noble Earl is able to accept my assurance that we intend to bring forward an amendment which will, I believe, in large part meet his concerns and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment before us.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I do not think there is anything in principle that divides us. We are united in our agreement that this matter is extremely difficult to get right.
The best way to deal with such matters is not by apparently adversarial discussion across the Chamber when I do not think we feel any need to argue with each other from any official position. It might possibly be best if we could discuss a draft of this amendment privately and quietly and, I hope, without any need to strike formal poses and move amendments before we officially see it. I thank the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 268ZAAB and 268ZAAC not moved.]
Clause 177 agreed to.
Clause 178 agreed to.
Clause 179 [Duty to applicant whose case is referred]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 268ZAB:
Page 105, line 6, at end insert ("provided always that any person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness shall he entitled to help from a local authority; and if an authority notified under section 177(1) refuses to accept responsibility for the person concerned, the Secretary of State shall decide whether responsibility should fall on the notified or the notifying authority.").
The noble Earl said: This really is a coincidence. For the second time in a row, an amendment designated "ZAB"—the one I think of as "zabaglione"—seems to have fallen to me. I do not know what are the odds against that coincidence, but they must be pretty long.
This amendment seeks to deal with the procedure when somebody is thought not to be the responsibility of a particular local authority and the authority passes him on to somebody else. My method of tackling the amendment arises from reading a great many settlement cases under the old Poor Law. The problem seems identical, and the solution may be identical. The stresses that cause the problem to fall out the way it does are almost certainly identical.
The problem tends to be that the first local authority says, "He is not our problem, he is yours". The second local authority says, "No, he is not ours, he is yours". Then they may agree to send him on to a third local authority, which also does not want him. In the 17th century such disputes used to rumble on for years until ultimately they had to be sent to the Privy Council, which sent down a resolution which in the end people had to accept however much they objected to it.
This amendment would attempt to provide that, first, everybody who presents as homeless must be the responsibility of some local authority. You cannot be passed round like a parcel until you eventually go round outside the circle. Somebody has to do it. Secondly, if the authority to which the person is sent on refuses to accept that person, the Secretary of State (or his authorised representatives) should decide who should take responsibility.
This may not be the right way of tackling this problem. The Minister may have a better method in mind. But the problem will occur, so there has to be some way of tackling it. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I support the noble Earl. In relation to domestic violence, I received quite startling figures from the DoE. That is why I join in the noble Earl's sentiments. In 1995, 7,650 households were accepted for rehousing because of domestic violence; 19,700 households indicated that they had lost their second home through violent relationship breakdowns. So what the noble Earl enunciates tonight is a very serious problem which, unfortunately, local authorities have to solve in some way or other. The only way may be with more help from housing associations. It is a very serious problem for most local authorities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing between the noble Baroness and myself on the seriousness of the problem of domestic violence. Indeed, we discussed it earlier this evening and last Wednesday. I certainly hope that when we come forward with the amendments to which I referred, she and other Members of the Committee who are particularly interested in these matters will be satisfied.
However, while this particular amendment may include domestic violence, it goes a little further. It deals with the case where an authority to which a referral is notified refuses to accept responsibility for the person to be referred and suggests that the Secretary of State should then have the power to decide which of the two authorities should have responsibility for that person—a sort of Judgment of Solomon.
The present law, which is to be re-enacted in this Bill, is clear that whether or not a person who is unintentionally homeless and in priority need presents himself to the "correct" authority, accommodation must be secured for him. The issue we are discussing here is how it is to be achieved. I do not think the noble Earl's proposal is either necessary or practical. The Secretary of State cannot be expected to intervene in each and every case in which such a dispute arises. Further, such a power might encourage authorities to pass over to the Secretary of State the "difficult" cases, or those where a decision might prove controversial or unpopular.
Noble Lords will be aware that, since 1979, all local authorities have administered inter-authority referrals in accordance with an agreement drawn up by the local authority associations. That agreement has operated very effectively on the basis of voluntary co-operation, and deals with the practicalities of referrals and with the procedures for dealing with disputes between authorities. The agreement relates to the position under the Housing Act 1985, and the Government will be asking the associations to review and renew it in the light of this Bill. We are anxious to maintain the principle of a voluntary agreement in this area. It has worked effectively until now. I see no reason why it should not continue to do so.
The power of intervention by the Secretary of State in individual disputes is, I submit, a little too interventionist. I might just tease the noble Earl by
860
saying that I am surprised that he wished to introduce such an interventionist provision. On a more serious note, I hope that I have been able to convince the Committee that the power is unnecessary, given the perfectly adequate voluntary arrangements that are already in place.
The Committee will be aware that Clause 177(6) contains a power for the Secretary of State to direct by order how questions about referrals should be resolved in the event that arrangements under the associations' agreement do not resolve any disputes. So there is a backstop power there in the legislation. But I prefer to rest on the perfectly good agreement that has been between local authorities over the years and rest on my confidence that authorities will continue to act in the way in which they have acted in the past.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I enjoyed the Minister's teasing about the Secretary of State. I do not disagree with what he said. It was not my serious intention to involve the Secretary of State. I put down that procedure, which was the 17th century one, first, because I thought that the Minister would say what he did say and, secondly, because it provided a probing opportunity for him to say what else should happen instead. That he has done. I am satisfied. I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 179 agreed to.
Clause 180 agreed to.
Clause 181 [Right to request review of decision]:
[Amendment No. 268ZAC not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 268ZAD:
Page 105, line 30, leave out from ("made") to ("beginning") in line 31 and insert ("within 28 days or such further period as the local housing authority permit").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I was waiting for my noble friend on the last amendment to explain that he had introduced the reference to the Privy Council in order to give the Minister yet one more thing to do in his currently very quiet life.
This amendment seeks to extend the period to request a review from 14 days to 28 days, with discretion for an extension of that period. Clause 181 provides for a review of decisions under a number of clauses in the Bill. I believe that 14 days may be an unnecessarily tight period. There may be a number of occasions—we have just referred to the position when an applicant seeks to avoid a continuation of domestic violence; he may be in a refuge or outside the determining local authority's area; or possibly be in hospital—when the 14-day period in practice might turn out to be too short.
It is important that the process works well. This is the only opportunity for a tenant to appeal against a decision. Indeed, if problems arise from the shortness of the period, the whole review process could be undermined. It is important that an applicant has proper

861
time to seek advice. In the absence of enough time, the decision must be to apply for a review in order to preserve one's rights.
In other situations in the housing area, the length of time is rather longer. In the housing benefit regulations six weeks are given to appeal against an authority determination of entitlement and a further four weeks to appeal against the outcome of an internal appeal and request a hearing by the benefit review board. An application for judicial review of a local authority homelessness decision takes a good deal longer. Under the 1977 Rent Act there are 28 days to appeal to the rent assessment committee; and so on.
Also, it is important that people who do not find English easy or indeed do not find bureaucracy easy should have time to get to grips with the situation and obtain the right advice.
In another place the Minister said that an amendment to this provision would be considered. I do not believe that any further indication has come from the Government since then as to their intentions. I hope that the Minister can give the Committee some further assurance tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I support Amendment No. 268ZAD. I am a little puzzled as to where the 14-day period came from. Perhaps the Minister will reveal that he unearthed it from earlier legislation or that it is a new discovery. If so, by what process was the 14-day period arrived at? It is too short.
If we are to seek to give people a sense that their rights are being protected, they must be given enough time to deal with the situation. I cannot see any advantage in rushing people into responding quickly when there may be language difficulties with the notification from the council or people may be ill and so forth. It is completely unreasonable and against the concept of having an internal review of a decision by a local authority that the request for the review should have to be put in so quickly. It is perverse and, if it did not come from earlier legislation, it must be a mistake. I hope that the Minister will feel able to rectify it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 268ZAD seeks to extend the time during which a request for a review must be made from 14 to 28 days after an applicant is notified of an authority's decision.
When the matter was raised in another place by the honourable Member for Christchurch, my right honourable friend agreed to reflect on the period in the light of similar periods of notice in other matters of housing law. We have now considered the period of notice and, on reflection, have concluded that 14 days is a reasonable period in which to allow a homeless applicant to decide whether he wishes to appeal a decision. I cannot offer the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, an explanation as to where the I4-day period came from other than to say that around the same amount of time has elapsed since we began considering this Bill in Committee. I realise that that may not be a good reason for using 14 days.
862
A longer period might be justified if an applicant needed to weigh up the risk of any costs incurred, or were he to need time to prepare a case. However, no such considerations apply here. Lengthening the time during which an applicant can seek a review would merely increase the period of uncertainty for both the applicant and the local authority. We are providing that the applicant is notified of his right of appeal, and 14 days should be sufficient for him to lodge a simple application for a review; he does not have to give full grounds at that stage.
Those two points are important. The applicant does not risk costs being incurred and does not need time to prepare his case. From that point of view a shortish period is probably wise in order to get the review under way. We are talking of issues that may have a sense of urgency attached to them—or should have if someone is seeking to be considered under the homelessness legislation.
If subsequently new evidence comes to light which may have led the authority to reach a different decision, it is open to the applicant to draw that to the attention of the authority by means of a new application. Therefore 14 days is a reasonable period of notice and is consistent with other matters in the Housing Bill. A request for a review does not require a great deal of thought. The applicant will either be satisfied that he has been considered and rejected or will not be pleased. He will realise that he has nowhere else to turn and will have to ask for a review. He does not need more than 14 days to bring that about. In such cases the faster the case is resolved, the better. I hope that with that information the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister says that by extending the period, the period of uncertainty will be extended. I accept that in relation to the local housing authority. But if an applicant wants to extend the uncertainty for himself, then he should have the scope to do so. After all, he could end that uncertainty by applying for a review within 24 hours on the basis of what the Minister says.
Also, it would be unfortunate if having so short a period means that applicants are tempted to apply for a review without preparing their case or working out the reasons, thus leading to a greater workload for the local housing authority and for CABs and so forth which may be assisting.
The Minister implicitly, but perhaps not explicitly, commented on the second part of the amendment, which is to allow a local authority discretion to extend the period. Can he say whether there is any inherent objection to that? That may help both parties to deal with procedural matters rather more smoothly. Perhaps I may also ask him to confirm that the applicant has only to request a review within the time limit. I am not sure within what period the case has to be put. I should be grateful if the Minister could assist me on that point, or perhaps it is a matter for regulations.
Lord Dubs: Before the Minister answers, perhaps I may comment a little further. This may not be the

863
most significant amendment of the whole of the Committee stage but it seems to me that the Minister is being extremely reluctant to meet the arguments that we have been putting forward. On a number of occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill—or perhaps it was the Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill: one becomes a little confused these days—the Minister has prided himself on account of his constituency surgery experiences in the days when he was in the other place and represented a constituency. I put it to him that some of the people who are turned down for consideration under the homelessness arrangements by a local authority are likely to want to get some advice. They may say that they will consult their local councillor; they may say that they will consult their Member of Parliament. Each of those processes may take a little time. They may say that they want to consult their brother, their uncle or their father. In all those instances—those are perfectly reasonable things for people to want to do—time will go by and people may miss the opportunity.
Had these provisions been in place some years ago I could visualise people coming to my constituency surgery and saying, "I have had this letter from the town hall. What do I do about it?", by which point they might well have missed the date. The Minister is being unreasonable. We do not live in a world where all people efficiently deal by return of post with every communication that they receive. We do not live in a world where every individual knows exactly the significance of a communication from a local authority. The Minister will know that from his constituency days. I certainly remember it and anyone who has served on a local authority would also know that.
The Minister is being quite unreasonable and I think that a concession on this point would reflect the reality and the knowledge that individuals sometimes, for reasons beyond their direct control, need a little time to consider the implications of a communication from a local authority.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Given the sweetness and light we have had since the supper break, I am sorry to act as something of a block on that at this point and over what on the face of it does not seem to be very much. We have to remember what we are talking about. We are talking about someone putting in an application to the local authority. In all the hours of debate, noble Lords have said that for many people this is a traumatic experience which is very serious for them. I entirely agree with that. However, I really do not think that the answer to the question "Will you consider me under the homelessness legislation?" is the kind of matter one puts behind the clock on the mantelpiece and forgets for a week or two. I really do think that one would do something about it fairly quickly. I am not sure that it is imposing a great burden to suggest that it has to be done within 14 days. I should have thought
864
that on a matter of this seriousness 14 days is quite a long time to give people the chance to take any advice they want in deciding what they are going to do.
Lord Northbourne: Does the noble Lord accept that many people in this country now do not speak English? I am thinking particularly of the Bangladeshi community. At Toynbee Hall, with which I am involved, we provide a free legal service, but the lawyers come only once a week. It would be so easy for 14 days to slip by under those circumstances without the person even understanding possibly what the letter was saying.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I can accept that. One assumes that the application has been made in a language which the officials understand. I am not sure that we should go overboard in consideration of the fact that there may be a person somewhere with that kind of problem. I hope that there are not a lot of people in this country who cannot speak English because that would be a very serious position.
Lord Northbourne: There are first generation immigrants.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My definition of a "lot of people", in a population of 55 million, is many hundreds of thousands of people. It is a reflection on our education system if they do not speak English. If one is going to live in a country it is quite important at least to be able to find one's way around the language as quickly as possible. That is something of an aside. I want to make some progress on this matter in relation to the generality of cases.
I have tried to suggest that in such a situation 14 days is reasonable. I believe I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, how long it takes for a case to be decided. That is at the discretion of the local authority itself. If a person applies and later says that he is going to appeal and will return with the grounds of appeal, a certain amount of time is available. I come back to my point that if the homelessness position is as serious as I have been told it is throughout the day, the person concerned is not going to leave the letter on the mantelpiece for long. But in order to allow progress, perhaps I may do what my right honourable friend in the other place did and say that I shall reflect on the points that have been made to me and consider whether we should extend the period to 28 days.
Earl Russell: The Minister is quintessentially a reasonable man. For that reason he does not quite understand the way shock may affect some people whose reason, if I may so put it, is somewhat less Spartan than that of the Minister himself. There are many people who, faced with a really vital shock, go into something of a fugue and put the letter on the mantelpiece and, very much in the manner of the ostrich, hope that the thing will go away if they do not look at it. I have known that to happen among pupils and friends many times. It is a well-known phenomenon. If the Minister believes that it does not happen then his experience is very different from mine.

865
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about people who do not speak English. I do not believe that that is necessarily a reflection on our education system. Some of the people have been here for a short period of time; some have had interrupted schooling, perhaps because of homelessness, as we said earlier today. I remember meeting some of them when I was a child in another part of the United Kingdom. Their native language in which they were fluent was Welsh.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is another point which may be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if it is re-emphasised. The Minister speaks all the time as though we are dealing with people who are homeless and effectively roofless. Therefore, not only will they be unable to respond within the 14 days, but possibly they may not have a mantelpiece on which to put the letter. Throughout this Bill we are talking about people who are threatened with homelessness as well as those who are homeless. If one is threatened with homelessness one may be trying to negotiate with a landlord. There may be a question about a pending court case. One may be dealing with arrears and the rest. To seek also to cope with a local authority situation within 14 days may be too much.
I do not understand why the Government are resisting this amendment. I understand that for every 100 amendments which the Opposition may bring forward, the Government may resist about 85 of them because they are ideologically unacceptable or cost too much money. But there is a whole raft of amendments, which may amount to 10 per 100, which matter not an iota to the substance of the Bill and in which there is no macho element involved. There is no need to resist them. They are amendments in which the Opposition Benches have made a real point. But in this case it is too tight a timetable, particularly for those threatened with homelessness who are trying to avert it. It costs the Government absolutely nothing at all to concede the point that in all fairness 28 days (or some other appropriate time) is more reasonable. There is no reason on this earth for the Government to dig in their heels and to resist the amendment just for the sake of it. May I invite the Minister to take it away and then come back and meet us on this point?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am tempted to change my mind from the offer that I made three or four minutes ago which I thought might conclude the debate. I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness was getting at when she said she thought that I was assuming that people were roofless. I know that they are not because I have given the statistics on that previously. The vast majority will still have a mantlepiece on which to put the letter.
Although I am puzzled about why in an urgent situation people should be given 28 days instead of 14 in which to get a review under way on the question of whether the local authority has made a mistake in trying to establish whether or not they are homeless, I have given a commitment that I shall take the matter away
866
and reflect on it. Despite the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I shall not go any further than that now.
Baroness Hamwee: In thanking the Minister for his offer to reflect further, may I ask him to reflect on two further points? I am not asking him to respond to them now. First, if the timetable for proceeding with the review and for considering the case and the evidence, if I may put it that way, is within the discretion of the local authority, there should be no objection to allowing a local authority to give an applicant more than 14 days in which to start the review process.
Secondly, going beyond the comments made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, may I suggest that an applicant who receives a letter which states something like, "Council X has considered your application and determined to notify another local housing authority pursuant to Section 177 of the Housing Act 1966", might well think that that is good news, not bad news? In other words, there is plenty of scope for bureaucracy. A later clause suggests that an authority has a duty to explain those provisions in ordinary language. When we reach that clause I shall ask the Minister whether he can tell me why only one matter is singled out for explanation in ordinary language. Every matter should be dealt with in that way. Does the Minister want to intervene?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No.
Baroness Hamwee: Having made those points and having been assured that the Minister will take them on board without responding now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 181 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 268ZAE:
After Clause 181, insert the following new clause—
RIGHT TO APPEAL
(" .—(1) An applicant notified by a local housing authority under section 164 above of their decision—

(a) that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness,

(b) whether he has a priority need,

(c) whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally and whether they have notified or propose to notify another local housing authority under section 179, or

(d) that suitable alternative accommodation is available in their district under section 176,

may within 21 days of notification appeal to the county court.
(2) On an appeal the court shall consider—

(a) whether the decision by the local housing authority was made in accordance with the law;

(b) any finding of fact by the local housing authority as to the circumstances of the applicant's homelessness, whether as a result of the authority's inquiries under section 164 or otherwise; and

(c) any fact relied upon by the applicant and set out in the applicant's grounds of appeal.

(3) On an appeal the court may make such order either confirming, quashing or varying the decision of the local authority as it thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: A local authority has a number of possible different reasons for refusing to treat an individual as homeless or as threatened with homelessness. Those reasons might include a decision that the individual is not in the category of having priority need. The individual might be regarded as having made himself homeless intentionally or it might be that the individual has suitable alternative accommodation in the eyes of the local authority. What powers does the individual have to challenge local authority decisions?
An individual could ask for a review of the decision, as we have just discussed. However, although we have just spent some time trying to improve things, the review is likely to be carried out by the same local authority officer who made the original decision to exclude that individual from the homelessness provisions.
There is a requirement for a better method of appeal than simply an internal review. That is why this amendment is important. Apart from the internal review, the only choice open to an individual is to go for judicial review. However, judicial review has far more to do with the way in which the particular decision is reached than the outcome. It may well be that the individual will win a judicial review hearing. The local authority may be asked to reconsider the case, and it may reconsider it by using more appropriate methods than before but still arrive at the same decision.
For most individuals judicial review is an expensive, clumsy, slow and difficult process. I am sure that the Government do not wish to create a situation where more people feel obliged to have recourse to judicial review. That is where this amendment comes in. The amendment provides that a right of appeal against a homelessness decision by the local authority can lie to the county court. The county court can reverse the decision reached by the local authority. The county court is a much more appropriate way of doing it. It is less costly, quicker and more local than the High Court which at present conducts judicial review hearings. It is generally regarded as a more appropriate venue for such an appeal.
I believe that this amendment will move matters forward and may save the Government money. It depends upon the individual's entitlement to legal aid. It may well be that because of the simpler county court procedures public money will be saved. It may not be government money but local authority money. However, the process would be more cost-effective in terms of public money. It would certainly be more user friendly. The right of appeal to a county court also has the advantage of having been recently recommended by the Law Commission. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is preparing his final report on his review of the civil justice system. It is believed that that report will recommend a new route of appeal to the county court in homelessness cases.
The county court process is quicker and more effective than judicial review. To give an individual the right of recourse to the county court will provide that
868
essential final safeguard against a decision to refuse to consider him under the homelessness provisions. This is not a light matter; for the individual it can be a very significant and serious decision. That is why this amendment incorporates a proper and effective method of appeal against such a decision if it is adverse to the claimant. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 181 provides a means of redress, following the 14 days—perhaps, on reflection, it may be 28 days—in which the individual has the right to appeal. The clause introduces a new responsibility on local authorities to establish a procedure for reviewing decisions that they make in discharge of their duties under the homelessness legislation. It is a form of internal appeals procedure. We certainly do not recommend that the review be carried out by the same official who reached the original decision. It should be conducted at a different level within the authority, perhaps by a senior officer or officers or even by councillors. We intend to cover that matter in our guidance when it comes out. That review procedure will cover all of the main areas in which the applicant has a substantive right.
In considering this amendment, we must bear in mind also the other remedies. My right honourable friend in another place touched on these matters. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned the possibility of judicial review, although I fully appreciate that is very much a back-stop.
We have to bear in mind the scope for vexatious or speculative appeals which could be caused by too wide a right of appeal, and I do not think that that would be in anyone's interest. However, I have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord. If he were prepared to withdraw his amendment, I would like to reflect further on what he said, bearing in mind the burden on the courts and the potential for unnecessary appeals. Depending on the outcome of this consideration, I may consider bringing forward alternative provisions at a later stage.
We are very much alive to the issues which the noble Lord has raised this evening. They are receiving our active consideration. I hope on that basis, having made his points, the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: The spirit of harmony is washing all over us. I appreciate what the Minister has said and, of course, I look forward with interest and enthusiasm to the outcome of his deliberations on this matter. In the meantime, I thank him and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 268ZAEA is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 268ZAF.
[Amendments Nos. 268ZAEA and 268ZAF not moved.]
Clause 182 agreed to.
Clause 183 [Suitability of accommodation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 268ZAG:
Page 107, line 6, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("Parts VI, IX, X and XI of the Housing Act 1985 (repair notices; slum clearance; overcrowding; houses in multiple occupation)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 268ZAG stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I hope this is a straightforward amendment. Its purpose is to require the local authority to have regard not only to those matters which fall within the parts of the Housing Act 1985 listed in the Bill—slum clearance, overcrowding, houses in multiple occupation—but also to repair notices when they assess the suitability of accommodation.
Part VI of the 1985 Act provides powers for local authorities to tackle disrepair. It deals with properties which are in such a state of disrepair as to make them unfit for human habitation and with properties which are in substantial disrepair but not unfit, as the term is defined.
We debated earlier in Committee the problems arising from the poor condition of housing in certain parts of the private sector. We have debated the need, as we see it, for a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation and the effect that poor quality accommodation has on matters such as health, children's education and so on.
The extent of disrepair is not something with which any of us can feel comfortable. Nor can we feel comfortable knowing that a very human and understandable attitude on the part of the tenant is that he does not want to make a fuss because he might upset the landlord and be turned out of his property as a result. I understand that about three-quarters of landlords say that their properties are not inspected before homeless households move in. That does not surprise me. But it is important that a local housing authority should have regard to the state of repair as well as the matters listed in Clause 183(1).
Anticipating that the Minister may refer to the regulation-making power under Clause 183(2), I wonder whether I may take this opportunity to ask him when an order may be published for consultation—I assume there will be consultation—and when an order may be implemented, as it is important that there is certainty when the primary legislation comes into effect. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We now turn to the definition of "suitable" accommodation for the purposes of this part of the Bill. The provision we are now discussing ensures that where functions are being discharged under the homelessness legislation the accommodation to be provided is suitable. I have referred to Clause 183 on a number of occasions during the course of the day when the word "suitable" has fallen to be discussed. Perhaps I may restate what Clause 183 seeks to do.
870
Apart from the new order-making power to which I shall refer in a minute, Clause 183 re-enacts provisions contained in Section 69 of the Housing Act 1985.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 did not contain express provisions as to suitability of accommodation. We introduced that concept in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (following the 1985 judgment in the case of Puhlhofer). The intention was to strengthen the homelessness provisions by setting out the factors that authorities should take into account in determining whether accommodation is suitable. The Housing and Planning Act 1986 amended Section 69 of the Housing Act 1985 to require authorities to have regard to the parts of that Act which deal with slum clearance, overcrowding and houses in multiple occupation. It was not then thought necessary to extend "suitability" to encompass repair notices, and given that the state of the housing stock has since improved, I do not think we need it now.
The new order-making power which we are taking in Clause 183 will allow the Secretary of State to specify, first, circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable for someone; and, secondly, matters which are to be taken into account or disregarded in determining whether accommodation is suitable for someone. Those powers will provide an important safeguard for homeless people and, if it proves necessary, we shall not hesitate to use them to extend further the definition of the term "suitable".
Amendment No. 268ZAG seeks to extend the existing provisions by ensuring that they refer to statutory provisions on the repair of the property and its fitness for habitation.
Although I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned about the interpretation that some authorities might give to the term "suitable accommodation", I believe that her fears are largely unfounded. In general, I am sure that we would want authorities to take account of the state of repair and fitness of the property.
The duty of authorities to secure suitable accommodation for households to whom they owe a duty under the homelessness legislation is not qualified by the availability of stock, and to impose too many restrictions on the stock they may use could present them with serious problems. We would not, in general, expect an authority to use accommodation that is subject to a repair notice for the discharge of its functions, although there could be cases where that might be a temporary expedient, either until repairs are effected or until something more suitable becomes available.
The current Homelessness Code of Guidance does not address the question of suitability in relation to accommodation used in the discharge of duty to any great extent; we shall consider what more needs to be said when we revise it, and in doing so will take note of the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I doubt that we need specific reference to the requirements of Part VI of the 1985 Act. If clear problems emerge about the way in which authorities are discharging their new duty, the option of an order under Clause 183 remains available.

871
As to when the order under Clause 183 will see the light of day, any order under the clause would have to be in place when the legislation commences. We shall discuss the possible content with interested parties over the summer before finalising anything. It will not be a formal consultation, but it will be a discussion with those interested. I hope that with that explanation and assurance the noble Baroness can withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. Without trading statistics about housing conditions, perhaps I may remind him that my amendment would require a local housing authority only to have regard to Part VI. In other words, can the Minister have regard to the fact that I want it only to have regard to that part? That appeared to be precisely what he was saying when he explained that he would expect local housing authorities to take condition into account. Therefore, I am going no further than wanting the point to be made clear on the face of the Bill.
Having said that, and looking forward to the consultation on the order on suitability, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 268A:
Page 107, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether accommodation is suitable for a person to occupy with a dependent child or children under the age of 11, the local housing authority shall have regard to—

(a) the suitability of that accommodation for a family with young children and for the upbringing of children under safe and hygienic conditions: and

(b) the availability of safe areas in which young children can play both indoors and outdoors,

and shall ensure that the accommodation is suitably located to avoid disruption to the schooling of the child or children.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 268A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 268B. Recently there has been a lot of good research which, at considerable expense to the taxpayers, shows us what any intelligent person would have known in the first place; namely, that unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation is seriously damaging to families and young children. It affects health, creates stress and can often lead to family break up. Children need a safe place to play, a settled school life, friends, normal socialisation and security.
A recent Barnardos report states:
"Minimum standards prescribing the type and quality of temporary accommodation should be established. The focus should be on providing a safe, secure and healthy environment for children. In particular, the standards should address: access to personal washing and toilet facilities, access to cooking and laundry facilities, including the storage of food, access to play space for children".
Many good local authorities are doing an extremely good job in this respect and take their responsibilities very seriously. But voluntary organisations state that there are a significant number of local authorities which are not and which are using bed-and-breakfast accommodation of an inadequate and unsatisfactory quality as a dump for homeless people. All the
872
amendment is designed to do is to bring the standard of all local authorities up to the standard of the best. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment in this form, it would be helpful if he could tell the Committee how that obviously desirable objective could be achieved.
Amendment No. 268B relates to young people leaving care. Approximately 10,000 young people leave care each year. Sixty per cent. of young people leaving care are 16 or 17 years old, whereas the average age of young people leaving home is 20 to 22. Therefore, they are an especially vulnerable group. Furthermore, they have not had the support of a normal family background and sometimes have not been adequately prepared to move out into the world.
Centrepoint's current statistics show that 28 per cent. of young homeless people have been in care. Statistics from agencies outside London—in particular, in a report on Hull—show that 40 per cent. of young people come from care. Yet the population who have been in care represents less than 1 per cent. of the total. Often young people coming out of care need support and encouragement; perhaps a little friendly pressure sometimes to get out of bed in the morning, to settle down, seek a job and look for training. They need someone to replace the family which they do not have.
Section 72 of the Housing Act 1985 requires local authority housing departments to co-operate with each other in discharging their functions relating to homelessness and threatened homelessness. It also requires social services authorities to co-operate with housing authorities in relation to those provisions. However, it does not place a reciprocal duty on housing authorities to respond to requests from social services departments that accommodation be secured for their clients. The experience of the Children's Society shows that too often that co-operation does not exist.
A recent Department of Health research study found that housing departments did not always take account of the housing needs of care leavers even when representations were made by their local social services departments.
The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that such young people not only need priority access to accommodation but may also need a certain amount of care and support. That kind of care and support is provided by the Foyer Federation for Youth, by hostels and by other voluntary organisations which sometimes accommodate such young people in flats or houses, guaranteeing the rent in return for the young person entering into a contract in relation to his behaviour. Such organisations gradually wean those young people from a dependence on the children's home and enable them to take on the responsibilities of life in the community. The object of the amendment is to draw attention to the importance of this issue. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We support the amendment warmly from these Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has proposed very persuasively a pair of amendments which focus on both younger children and youngsters coming out of care who are some of the most vulnerable people faced with

873
homelessness. For example, something like 49 per cent. of those the Salvation Army found engaged in prostitution had come out of care. We know that many involved in begging have come out of care. That is often because the arrangements for those coming out of care into independent accommodation have not been managed properly by the local authorities. We should support any provision which will ensure that the various agencies work together to enable those young people to enjoy a free and independent life and no longer to be at risk. I hope that the Minister will be able to support, or give a version of support, to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I add my support for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am involved with perhaps the largest charity in Birmingham which has been in existence for 25 years; namely, St. Basil's scheme for the young homeless. It caters for a large percentage—one-third—of people coming out of care. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, those children are extremely vulnerable because they have no one to whom they can turn. That is why they have been in care. When they come out of care there is no one to help them. If they are on the streets, that creates a very serious and stressful problem which may have serious effects later on in life.
I seek an assurance from the Minister in relation to those organisations. Last year St. Basil's had 3,000 applications and was able to accept only 125. Young people are with us for roughly 18 months during which time we give them the necessary training in order to take up employment. In Birmingham we are extremely fortunate that the local authority and social services departments work with us closely and with the housing department. In many cases, accommodation is found for the young people. I seek an assurance that that good and effective practice which is taking place is in Birmingham is able to continue so that after the Bill becomes law we can carry on with what we consider is a very important job for young people.
Baroness Hamwee: My name is to one of the amendments but from these Benches I wish to support both. The noble Lord drew our attention to a detailed matter which could have been regarded as falling in part within the thrust of my last amendment. He is right to draw to the Committee's attention the issues concerning children and young people. We may hear that it is yet another matter for a regulation-making power, but assistance and support from the Government would be helpful on the issue.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two amendments seek to extend the provisions for determining whether accommodation is suitable. I mentioned in the previous debate that we have taken powers in Clause 183 to prescribe when and how accommodation is to be regarded as suitable. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing has indicated in another place that we shall, if necessary, use the powers to extend further the definition of the term "suitable".
874
The first amendment would introduce new tests to determine whether accommodation is suitable for a family with young children. I share the noble Lord's belief that all authorities should aim to provide the type of accommodation he describes. However, I ask the Committee to consider whether it is best achieved through legislation.
The noble Lord's amendment would restrict the type of accommodation which an authority could use to discharge its duty. The authority may be limited as to the type of accommodation it could provide and would be unable to look to accommodation outside a particular area. Such a degree of prescription might leave some authorities, particularly those in areas with a limited supply of accommodation accessible to children's existing schools, unable to discharge their duties. A difficult balance may have come into play here between our desire that the children should be accommodated and homeless persons should get a house to tide them over and our desire that the house should be as suitable as possible. To be too prescriptive about the degree of suitability could reduce the number of houses available for those families who are homeless or about to become homeless.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the Homelessness Code of Guidance refers to the necessity to take account of the household's needs, including access to schools. I assure him that we will continue to reflect that when we revise the code.
The noble Lord mentioned bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I fully agree that it is not suitable for families, except for short-term reception purposes. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has decreased to one-third of the level in September 1991. It now accounts for only about 10 per cent. of all interim accommodation under present legislation. I emphasise the word "interim" because it is the most temporary form of help which the local authority provides. I hope the explanation meets the noble Lord's concern and that he will feel able, having rehearsed the problem which we all appreciate, to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 268B would require the authority to take into account the welfare needs of a young person leaving local authority care when assessing whether accommodation is suitable. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has in mind the quality of the accommodation or whether he has a more general concern about the availability of support for young people in need.
I share the noble Lord's concern that young people in need should have proper access to the care and support they require. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, underlined the point quite rightly. However, I do not believe that the availability or absence of such support should be grounds for deciding whether to offer a particular property to an applicant. I suspect that it is the other side of the problem that concerns the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—that perhaps without the necessary care and support a young person may be unable to sustain a tenancy which he secured under the new duty. Such decisions are best left to social services

875
departments, which have the expertise in making such assessments. It would be wholly inappropriate to expect a housing department to make judgments about a young person's care needs. If a housing department believes that an applicant is in need of care, it has the power, under Clause 185, to call on the assistance of a social services department.
The Children Act 1989 makes provision to ensure that support continues for young people leaving local authority care. Section 24 of that Act requires social services authorities to advise, assist and befriend young people when they leave their care. A social services authority may, under Section 27 of that Act, call on the assistance of a housing authority in discharging its duty to that young person; if a request is made, the housing authority is under a duty to comply.
The statutory framework for co-operation between housing and social services departments is already in place. What is needed is the means of making it work. What we are talking about here is the need for a proper partnership between the two functions. As I have remarked before in Committee, the existing Homelessness Code of Guidance was drawn up before the Children Act was fully in operation. I believe that I read out one of the paragraphs which to some extent anticipated the Children Act, referring to the Act about to come into effect. Now that the Act is in force and fully operational, we have several years' experience to draw on. We shall ensure that authorities have fresh guidance on how to operate in the context of the new legislation.
It is right that I should mention two aspects drawn to our attention in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He mentioned foyers. The Government agree that they can be a valuable means of providing accommodation and training opportunities for young people under one roof. The Government have supported generously the development of several foyers, not least under the rough sleepers initiative in central London. Foyers have also been successful in obtaining Exchequer funds from the single regeneration budget. We see them as a useful development, as the noble Lord mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, mentioned St. Basil's in Birmingham. Again, we are aware of the good work done by St. Basil's in Birmingham. The Department of the Environment pays a grant to St. Basil's as well as to some 150 other voluntary sector organisations throughout England to allow them to continue with their work of relieving homelessness—among single homeless people in the case of St. Basil's in Birmingham. I see no reason why St. Basil's would not continue its work under the new regime for which the Bill provides.
With those reassurances on two important matters, which I much appreciate, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: As always, we come back to the problem that we have not seen the guidance. As usual, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. I do not
876
know what to say. I accept the noble Lord's assurance, but so much may or may not be stated in the guidance which will make a great difference as to whether matters that we have been discussing will or will not be accomplished. I can only accept the noble Lord's assurance and hope to see the guidance, or to have an opportunity to comment on the draft when it arises.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord at least to a small extent. I recall reading out at least one paragraph and pointing out that there were a number of paragraphs in the current guidance on the subject of children. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord casts his eye over the current guidance. It was written just as the Children Act was coming in and will, therefore, need to be considerably updated in that regard. He will see the basis on which we are likely to continue our work on guidance.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may intervene with a few words. I said that good practice is being operated by the city council in Birmingham with the housing department, social services and St. Basil's. I simply seek assurance that such practice will still be allowed under the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: Continuing my dissertation, I return to the point that some local authorities are doing brilliantly. It is the dogs, those that are not making it, which are the problem. I shall take the amendment away and think about it. My reason for wanting to insert the provisions of Amendment No. 268A was precisely to force those local authorities that are not doing their job to jolly well get off their backsides and do it and to find the money to do it somehow. If we do not force them to do it, central government seem powerless to influence them and get results. However, I shall take careful note of the noble Lord's remarks. I beg leave, for the time being, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 268B not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 268BA:
Page 107, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Accommodation is not suitable unless it is at a rent which the applicant can afford, either from his own resources or with the benefit of such public assistance as is likely to be available to him.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, standing also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to establish on the face of the Bill, and not merely by the blank cheque of guidance—in which the Minister just asked the Committee to place such trust—that accommodation is not regarded as suitable for a homeless person for the purposes of this legislation if the person cannot afford the rent. In other words, part of the definition of accommodation being "suitable" is that it is affordable. Otherwise, it is not suitable.
The Government propose that local authorities will use the private rented sector extensively for homeless families while they are waiting their time on the housing register for permanent social housing. The trouble is, private rented housing is ill-suited to the needs of many

877
homeless families. It is often of poor quality and may add, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, to problems of poor health or disability. The worst problems of disrepair are to be found in the private rented sector. Energy and insulation costs are likely to be high, and fuel debts are likely to mount. Equally, private rented housing can often be quite small and unsuitable for larger families. It is also insecure. A shorthold tenancy lasts for only six months; therefore a family placed in the private rented sector can have no confidence that it will be there in a few months' time.
We know from all the research that the DoE itself has commissioned from Peter Kemp and others at the University of York that private landlords do not like letting to homeless families, families on housing benefit or families with children. They will let to them only if they cannot let to the people to whom they wish to let; namely, childless couples in work. Therefore, such families will very often end up with accommodation that the private landlord can rent to no one else.
Above all, private rented housing, as we know, is expensive. The average local authority rent for a two-bedroomed flat in 1993 was £39. The same accommodation in the private rented sector was £72 a week, or 85 per cent. higher. In London, it ran to over £100 a week, more than twice as much.
When we discussed this matter earlier, the Minister agreed that the insecurity, unsuitability and cost of private rented housing were among the major causes of homelessness. Something like one-fifth of all homeless families are homeless because they have been evicted from the private rented sector. The usual reasons for their eviction are that they cannot afford to pay the rent or the housing benefit does not arrive on time. Yet under the Bill homeless families will be sent back into the self-same rented sector from which they were made homeless in the first place. Unless the accommodation is more suitable this time round, the homeless will again be evicted and will again become roofless—endlessly churned, endlessly the revolving door.
If we are to avoid that churning, as I am sure the Minister wishes to do, it is essential that homeless families are placed in a private rented property that is suitable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it must be in decent physical repair. But it must also be accessible, as argued earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen; and it must also be affordable.
Yet even before the changes in housing benefit regulations this year, housing benefit for homeless families—80 per cent. of homeless families are on housing benefit—only covered the full rent in something like 60 per cent. of the tenancies. In the rest, if they wanted to stay in the private rented sector, families had to top slice their income support, which should have gone on food or clothing, to pay for rent. The housing benefit changes which the Government introduced in January have made that situation much worse.
Let me give just one example from the CAB in Cheshire. A homeless couple with a child had their house repossessed and were in temporary rented accommodation. The rent was £84 a week. Housing benefit until January covered £72 a week and they had
878
to find £12 of that out of their income support. Following the Government's capping of housing benefit in January, housing benefit fell to £55 a week—to meet a rent of £84. The difference of nearly £30 a week had to come out of a total income from income support of just £80 a week, leaving a family of three with just £50 a week on which to live. They could not; they did not; and they became homeless. I repeat, 80 per cent. of homeless families are on housing benefit and are likely to face that situation.
What happens if they cannot pay the extra rent out of income support, which was never intended for rent but for food and clothing? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Have they made themselves intentionally homeless? If so, where do they go? If they are unintentionally homeless what do they do next? Do they go to yet another private rented flat and face the risk that they cannot afford to pay the rent?
The Minister in another place on 26th March accepted that it was a problem. We expect the Minister to say nothing less tonight. In the other place, the Minister said that the Government would use regulations to ensure that accommodation that the applicant cannot afford, taking into account any housing benefit to which he is entitled, is not to be regarded as suitable. The Awva judgment of July 1995, already quoted tonight by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also confirmed that whether the occupant could afford the rent was "a material factor".
I fear that the Minister will say that this will be left to regulations; it will be left to a code of guidance. Given that these clauses of the Bill hinge on the word "suitable" any definition of suitability must be on the face of the Bill and, pivotally for those going into private rented sector accommodation, "suitable" must mean affordable. Then local authorities will know where they stand in the discharge of their duties. They simply cannot hand over a list of addresses and ask the tenants to take pot luck on where they wish to go. It is a protection to tenants; it is a protection to the Government, given that the courts most recently have not exactly supported the Government in relying on regulations to discharge what should have been done in primary legislation.
To avoid a fate that I am sure the Minister will wish to avoid, I hope that we can encourage him to support these amendments tonight. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that accommodation is not suitable unless it is at a rent which the applicant can afford. We have already considered the issue of affordability in dealing with Amendment No. 264AB from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I agreed that there was probably little difference between us on this point. The difference we have is that we do not agree on the means of achieving the desired result; that is, whether the issue should be addressed on the face of the Bill. As I made clear, we are taking an order-making power under Clause 183, and we firmly believe that the place to address affordability is in an order made under that clause.

879
During discussion of Amendment No. 264AB, the noble Baroness referred to the supply and availability of accommodation and the difficulties which people may have in securing the right accommodation for themselves. The Committee will be aware that local authorities are making considerable progress towards developing housing supply strategies which use the resources of the private sector, housing associations and other agencies. Indeed, I referred to that at greater length earlier this evening. It is no longer the case that people have to rely on the authority to provide the accommodation.
The noble Baroness suggested that one-fifth of homeless households were evicted from the private rented sector. The suggestion appeared to be that that had something to do with rent. Indeed, one-fifth of households were evicted from the private rented sector, but 80 per cent. became homeless for reasons other than rent arrears; for instance, breakdown of relationships, sharing and so forth. That means that only 20 per cent. are in rent arrears. A small calculation will show that it is not one-fifth of the homeless that are evicted from the private rented sector who are in rent arrears; it is only 2 per cent. who are evicted for rent arrears. The magnitude of the problem is not as great as the noble Baroness implied.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing said that affordability was an example of the sort of issue which we were considering using the order-making power to make clear. That is exactly the position I maintained in the previous amendment and I maintain it again now. A suggestion made by the noble Baroness was that benefit cuts would affect homelessness. I cannot agree with her. A person who cannot afford the rent on housing benefit—that is, at an average reference rent— will not be intentionally homeless. Accommodation at or above the reference rent will not be suitable. There is now case law in that regard and the question we must ask ourselves is whether we need to reinforce it by regulation.
The issue of affordability therefore is one which is raised irrespective of who provides the accommodation. Homelessness and every other factor must take affordability into account. As I said, we are reflecting on the adequacy of case law on that point and in the light of that will consider precisely how to use the order-making power under Clause 183.
We are clear that if we need to specify further what constitutes affordability, the right place to do that is in an order rather than on the face of the Bill. The great advantage of an order-making power is that one can change it fairly easily if circumstances change. In relation to these matters, circumstances could easily change. Coming back for primary powers does not happen often and, therefore, it is best that matters as detailed as this should be left to regulation. I am not sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me on that, but I suspect that she will not be surprised at the view I have taken. I am sure that she appreciates
880
that we are very much aware of the problem she raises. However, we believe that it is best solved by another route.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the Minister anticipated, I found his answer disappointing. He raised two issues. The first was the route by which one should address the problem and the second was the scale of the problem. With regard to the route, the Minister insists that the right response of the Government is order-making power and therefore they go the route of regulation. I should have thought that that was unwise, given what we have experienced recently. But more substantively, the issue of suitability in all its dimensions is the fulcrum of the whole of what it is reasonable for local authorities to offer to homeless families.
I am sure that the Minister would not dissent from that view. Time and again local authorities have to assure themselves that there is suitable accommodation available for a homeless family. If it is not, they are expected to discharge their responsibilities to homeless families in their own temporary accommodation. Yet the Government are unwilling to define this pivotal word—"suitable"—on the face of the Bill. We are allowed to define categories of people in Clause 148 who can be given reasonable preference; we are allowed to define people who have secure tenancies and who do not have to go through the introductory tenancy route. But when it comes to the word "suitable"—a pivotal word in Section 7—we are not allowed to define it other than by regulation. Why? Because circumstances may change. For instance, the Government may consider that accommodation does not have to be affordable. Is that a circumstance that may change?
The Minister shakes his head. Can he tell me in what way the word "affordable" is likely possibly to change such that he wants the flexibility of order rather than primary legislation? Is he saying that at some point the Government may decide that this is an immaterial factor? Surely not. The Minister has not given one reason why it should not be on the face of the Bill. I accept that regulations have a place for a provision that has numbers in it—money or whatever—which need to be uprated or where the matter is highly technical and may need to be subsequently amended. But the core of this Bill is that homeless families must be offered suitable accommodation. When we have pressed the Minister as to what "suitable" means—whether it is in terms of decent repair, physical access or affordability—he says that the Government will act by regulation in case circumstances change, in case they do not want families to have affordable accommodation, do not think physical access is relevant or do not think decent repair is relevant. That cannot be the case. I am very disappointed by the Minister's response. I do not doubt that we shall seek to come back to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 183 agreed to.
Clause 184 agreed to.
Clause 185 [Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies]:
[Amendment No. 268BB not moved.]
Clause 185 agreed to.
Clause 186 [False statements, withholding information and failure to disclose change of circumstances]:
On Question, Whether Clause 186 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pursue briefly a point I raised earlier regarding the reference in subsection (2) of the clause to an authority explaining to applicants in ordinary language. I very much support the use of ordinary language but I am concerned that, in providing specifically for ordinary language in connection with this duty, a licence is being given to local housing authorities to use opaque language in connection with other matters. Will the Minister give some explanation as to why the Government feel it necessary specifically in this clause to include these words? I accept that the clause deals with the commission of an offence, but to my mind that is not sufficient.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness is probably right that the reason for the words being in the clause is that it refers to a matter relating to an offence. I should quite like everything to be in ordinary language. When I suggest to parts of my department that we should write things in simpler language I come up against the answer, dare I say it to the noble Baroness, that we have to write it in such a way that the lawyers do not start playing ducks and drakes with it. Perhaps if the lawyers were more understanding and were less keen to go through things with a fine-tooth comb, we would all be able to write a lot of matters, including legislation, in simpler language. However, if the noble Baroness does not mind, I shall write to her about the detailed point she raised.
Clause 186 agreed to.
Clause 187 [Regulations and orders]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 268C:
Page 109, line 27, at end insert ("and shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Earl said: This is not my usual point. The amendment provides for making the regulation-making power affirmative. My original intention was simply to put down a probing amendment to delete the words in the clause. I was told I had to put down an alternative, which is why the affirmative procedure is there. I was intrigued by the words of Clause 187(1):
"In this Part 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of State".
That is not a form of words with which I am familiar. I am familiar with regulations made by Parliament. The Secretary of State lays regulations. Parliament makes them. The Secretary of State may make orders or on some occasions issue directions and give guidance, as we have already heard. But regulations of the
882
Secretary of State are a new kind of animal: they are a hybrid. I hope that, like mules, they may prove sterile. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: The trouble with mules is that they also kick.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I am thanking my noble friend Lord Swinfen for his intervention. I came armed for a discussion with the noble Earl on the usual basis on which we discuss these matters. He has taken me aback by changing its nature. I shall resist the temptation to draw historical parallels. The trouble with a certain kind of question is that every time one finds an answer the question is changed. I thought that I had answered the noble Earl this evening but he has changed the question.
I am intrigued by his question. If he says that this is not the normal way in which these things are written, I accept that that is the case. I shall look at the wording of Clause 187(1) and consider the matter he has raised and whyx2014;if it is—it is expressed in a different manner to that normally used for regulations and how they should be dealt with by both Houses. If the noble Earl is content with me writing to him on this interesting question, perhaps we may leave the matter at that.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that the postal strike does not last. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Homelessness: consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 268CA not moved.]
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 189 [Minor definitions: Part VII]:
Amendment No. 268D not moved.
Clause 189 agreed to.
Clause 190 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 270A:
Before Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
DISPOSAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITY OF RESIDENTIAL LEASEHOLD
("A local authority, when disposing of a residential leasehold, shall have a duty, as far as is practicable, to inform the potential purchaser of any proposed maintenance, repair or refurbishment plans affecting the property.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment requires a local authority to provide a potential purchaser of a council house or flat with reasonably full information about any possible charges which might arise in terms of maintenance, repairs and so forth. We are talking about adequate warning before the purchaser may have to pay what would otherwise be unexpected and sometimes quite large bills. That is not an idle fear. Wandsworth Council, of which I have some knowledge and

883
experience, claims the record for having sold more council houses and flats than any other local authority in the country. They are leasehold. Many of the purchasers found themselves very rapidly faced with quite unexpected and large bills for repairs, decoration and maintenance.
Perhaps I may give an example. A man to whom I spoke some time ago had bought a flat in of block of 16. Shortly after purchase—within about six months—he was faced with a bill for the installation of a new lift in the block. From memory I believe that his share of the bill was between £1,000 and £1,500. The fact that the lift would need to be repaired or replaced must have been known to the local authority before it sold the flat, yet the purchaser was given no indication that such a large bill was in the offing or that such large works would be necessary. The man was devastated at being faced with having to pay a large sum of money without any warning. He had not saved any money for that as he did not think that it was necessary.
There was some indication in the small print that if repairs and redecoration were necessary at some point all the owners of flats in the block would have to pay their share, but that is not the same as giving adequate warning. It would be reasonable and would represent good faith with the purchasers of council houses and flats if they were given such information. The amendment is couched in reasonable terms. It states that, where practicable, the local authority should give purchasers such information. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that the old saying, caveat emptor—buyer beware—applies when people purchase property from a local authority. I assume that purchasers will have raised a mortgage on the property, probably from a building society, and I believe that building societies now have a duty to look at the structure of a property which with a flat would include the structure of the block, not just of the flat itself. There is also a duty on the vendor—in this case the local authority—to answer any questions on the structure of the property that are asked by the purchaser or the purchaser's agents. Any purchaser would be wise to have a structural survey of the property undertaken which would discover risks such as those mentioned by the noble Lord.
I understand the noble Lord's point—he does not want purchasers of long leasehold interests suddenly to find themselves with an unexpectedly high maintenance cost very shortly after buying their interest—but what puts them in a different position from that of any other purchaser of any other property?
Lord Lucas: The new clause proposed by the noble Lord seeks to address a problem which concerns us all—that is, people who bought flats from a local authority and whose service charges are now higher than they anticipated or who now have less money coming in than they anticipated and have difficulty in coping. In some cases they cannot sell their property. These problems are not limited to council leaseholders; nor do they affect most council leaseholders. Recent academic
884
research carried out for the DoE suggests that the great majority of council leaseholders see their flat as good value for money.
For the minority who face difficulties, we have proposed our own measures in Clauses 191 and 192 which, subject to the views of Parliament, should go a long way to alleviate their problems and which should make the noble Lord's proposal less necessary. Our clauses give powers for the Secretary of State to issue directions allowing councils and other social landlords to reduce their leaseholders' charges for repairs and improvements and to require them to do so where they will be receiving specific additional funding for a scheme. We went out to consultation on these proposals on 14th June and I have sent copies of our paper to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—or rather, the ever-efficient Anne Hemming has sent them to them. Given our shared concerns, I shall approach the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in a spirit of co-operation. I am sure that he will do the same with ours.
I fully share the noble Lord's desire to give effective protection to leaseholders. However, I do not think that these proposals would be effective, or add anything to the information which is already available to tenants purchasing their flats.
First, the requirement as drafted is open to such general interpretation as to be almost meaningless. An authority might provide very general information that would provide little indication of likely future costs and say that it was not practicable to provide further detail, say, because of uncertainties over future availability of funds. There is no indication in the clause as to what would happen if the landlord failed to give information or gave only very general information.
Secondly, this clause would add little or nothing to the information already available to prospective purchasers. Our research found that 98 per cent. of those buying council flats used qualified conveyancers. It is standard practice for them to ask landlords about service charges, proposed works and other liabilities under the lease. The case history adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—which I find very surprising—ought to be the kind of matter to come forward at that time. If not, it would give the purchaser an unqualified cause of action against the vendor. Moreover, our 1995 leasehold good practice guide to local authorities advised them to provide more presale information on future liabilities. It is in their interests to do so. They do not want their leaseholders to incur debts to the council that they cannot pay off. That was very much the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
For these reasons, I cannot commend the new clause to the Committee and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his response. My understanding is that a number of leaseholders who have bought properties from Wandsworth council have been, and continue to be, dismayed and disconcerted by charges for repairs, refurbishment and service charges. However, Amendment No. 270A does not deal directly with service charges but with other costs. It may be that

885
Wandsworth council is unique, in that as a local authority it has not done as well by its leaseholders as other local authorities. But the welter of complaints continues, and many leaseholders in that area are fed up with the position in which they find themselves. However, if, as the noble Lord has said, Wandsworth is uniquely bad and other local authorities are better, all one can do is accept what he has said.
It seems to me that there is no dispute about the principle underlying Amendment No. 270A. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, says that on the basis of caveat emptor the purchaser should be able to find out anyway. That is right. However, there have been occasions when that has not proved possible. All the amendment seeks to do is place an obligation on local authorities to behave properly. I am sure that many do, but not all of them do. There is no dispute as to the desirability of the practice described in the amendment. The dispute appears to arise in relation to the scope of the amendment and whether the other safeguards which apply when people buy properties make an amendment of this kind unnecessary. On the basis of comments by many people to whom I have spoken, there is a need for extra safeguards. If the Minister is not to be persuaded this evening, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No.270B:
Before Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
USE. OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS TO REPURCHASE UNMORTGAGEABLE FLATS
(".—(1) Where this section applies a local authority may repurchase a relevant lease from a qualifying tenant at a price not exceeding the value of the lease determined in accordance with subsection (3) below.
(2) This section applies where the relevant lease was granted by the authority not less than three years before the date of the repurchase, and either—

(a) within the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of the assignment or surrender not less than three lending institutions have indicated in writing that they would not be prepared to offer to any person an advance—

(i) secured by a mortgage of the relevant lease for a term of 25 years, and

(ii) of an amount equal to 75 per cent. of the value of the relevant lease determined in accordance with subsection (3) below at a date not more than three months before the date on which the indication is given,

on grounds relating to the personal or financial status of that person, or the condition of the flat, or

(b) the local authority is satisfied that no leading institution would be prepared to offer an advance which meets the conditions specified in paragraph (a).

(3) For the purposes of this section, the value of the relevant lease shall be determined by an approved surveyor on the basis that it is the price which the relevant lease would realise at the date of valuation if sold on the open market by a willing vendor on the following assumptions—

(a) that the vendor was selling with vacant possession;

(b) that the purchaser was purchasing the relevant lease for the purpose of owner-occupation; and

(c) that where any criteria applied by lending institutions for the purpose of assessing mortgage applications relate to the number of storeys in the building or the number of
886
dwellings in the building which are occupied by owners, those criteria are not applicable to the flat demised by the relevant lease or any other flat in the same building.

(4) Credit cover for a credit arrangement entered into in connection with a repurchase to which this section applies may be provided from a capital receipt irrespective of any duty under section 59 (reserved part of capital receipts) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to set aside part of that receipt as provision to meet credit liabilities.
(5) in this section—
"approved surveyor" means a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers who is reasonably believed by the qualifying tenant to have ability in, and experience of, the valuation of dwellings, of the particular kind, and the particular area in question;

"flat" has the same meaning as in section 183 of the Housing Act 1985;

"lending institution" means an institution which is an approved lending institution for the purposes of section 156 of the Housing Act 1985:

"qualifying tenant" means the person to whom the relevant lease was granted or a person who has succeeded to the lessee's interest by virtue of a disposal of a description falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 160 of the Housing Act 1985;

"relevant lease" means a lease of a flat granted by the authority pursuant to Part V of the Housing Act 1985, or with a consent given by the Secretary of State to local authorities generally under section 32 or 43 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.270B. This amendment deals with a different point. I suppose that the words "negative equity" reflect the dilemma faced by many house purchasers up and down the country. This may apply also to those who have purchased long leaseholds from local authorities.
I give a recent example of a particular difficulty described to me by a Wandsworth councillor. There is a council block in which a minority of the tenants have bought their own flats and have thereby become long leaseholders. The remainder of the tenants continue, as before, as council tenants.
Repairs, refurbishment or redecoration need to be carried out to the block. If all the residents had been council tenants, the council could have proceeded with the work, but under the new arrangements there is an obligation on the council to get a contribution towards the cost of repair and refurbishment from the leaseholders. Because the leaseholders are finding it difficult to raise the money, the council has not been able to collect the appropriate sum from the leaseholders, and, therefore, none of the work is taking place. In other words, there is, effectively, a veto from the minority of leaseholders, and that has prevented the council tenants, who in good faith are paying their rents and ought to have the benefit of repairs and refurbishments, from having this work carried out. So an impasse has been reached.
I do not believe that that difficulty is unique to this one block of flats. It is a wider difficulty. I have spent some time trying to think of a way round it. It is not easy. Certainly Amendment No. 270B represents a possible way forward because it would enable a local authority to re-purchase unmortgageable flats so that, for example, the situation which I described could be remedied. A leaseholder who could not contribute to essential refurbishment or other costs and

887
who had a flat that could not be sold because of negative equity, would, under this amendment, be able to ask the local authority to re-purchase the flat on certain conditions, which are clearly specified here. Therefore, the leaseholder would be freed from a burden which he could face, and the council tenants, in the example that I gave, would then be able to have their flats, or the common parts, repaired and refurbished.
I do not put this amendment forward just because of the one example that I described. It has a wide applicability to council tenants who buy their flats and then find themselves in difficulties. The amendment puts forward a number of options as to a way forward, based upon the local authority being allowed to re-purchase, under certain circumstances, unmortgageable flats.
I appreciate that it is a complicated amendment. If there were a simpler way forward I would have put it down, but the problem is a real one. The amendment attempts to find a way out, at least for council tenants who find themselves in difficulties which are normally not of their own making. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: The proposed new clause seeks to address the same problem, to our mind, as Amendment No. 270A. I gladly repeat that we share the noble Lord's concern for the problems that some council leaseholders face, which we intend to alleviate.
The new clause, in Amendment No. 270B, is based largely on the exchange sale scheme which we introduced last year. That scheme is designed to help leaseholders who bought under the right to buy, who have an urgent need to move and cannot sell their flat because of mortgageability difficulties. It provides a financial concession to local authorities to encourage them to buy back the leaseholder's flat and to sell the leaseholder a more suitable property at a discount. It has only been in operation since July of last year.
The new clause would give a financial concession to local authorities to buy back a flat, but not to sell the occupant an alternative property. Local authorities already have power to buy back if they consider that a priority, given other demands on their resources. We do not consider that there is a case for giving them a financial concession.
As I have just said, we have introduced our own proposals for reducing leaseholders' service charges. These should also make it less likely for people to need to sell their flat. When we can see what impact those proposals have—and when the exchange sale scheme has been in operation for longer—we can consider whether any other steps are needed, including the proposal advanced by the noble Lord. At this stage, however, I cannot commend the new clause, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, feels able to withdraw it.
As I said, we see the changes we are introducing in Clauses 191 and 192 as the way we wish to go forward at the moment in enabling councils to reduce
888
charges to leaseholders to alleviate the type of problem the noble Lord illustrated. For the moment we do not believe that we should go down the route he advocates in the amendment.
Lord Dubs: The Minister has said no in as conciliatory manner as possible. I have listened to what he said. I shall reflect upon his words when I have had a chance to study them in Hansard to see whether the comfort he has attempted to bring by way of the Government's other measures to deal with the problems will help in the instances I have described. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth moved Amendment No. 270BA:
Before Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL SERVICE PROPERTY
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of any residential property held by him or on his behalf and occupied on 28th November 1995 by persons subject to the provisions of the services acts save in accordance with this section.
(2) Before making any proposal to dispose of any property to which subsection (1) applies the Secretary of State shall consult the occupants of the property to which the proposal relates.
(3) No proposal mentioned in subsection (2) shall have effect unless it is confirmed by order made by statutory instrument and subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(4) Together with any order made under subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement giving details of—

(a) the consultation under subsection (2); and

(b) the changes (if any) which, in the light of the consultation, the Secretary of State has made to his proposals.

(5) In this section—

(a) "the services acts" means the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act 1957; and

(b) "disposal" means sale, lease, mortgage, charge or any other disposition.").

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 276ZA, 276ZAA, 276ZAB and 276B. Those Members of the Committee who have spent many hours on the Housing Bill will, I hope, forgive me for introducing a new clause which addresses the issue of the Government's plans for the military estate defence housing portfolio.
Let me outline briefly the nature and the history of those plans. Before I do so I wish to say that I have discussed my approach to the clause fully with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is co-sponsor of the clause. He is unfortunately unavoidably prevented from being here tonight, but he is fully in agreement with all I have to say. I should add that the clause is aimed at securing a review of the new proposals for the married quarters estate. It is not intended in any way to interfere with or obstruct existing arrangements under which discrete surplus housing is being sold off. If the wording of the clause inadvertently proves to have that effect, I would of course wish to modify it accordingly before Report.
The armed forces own a large number of houses or married quarters scattered over the country in estates or patches. Many of them, because of the rapid—too rapid—run-down in numbers arising from Options for

889
Change and the Defence Costs Study, are now unoccupied. Those which are occupied are in many cases in disgracefully poor condition.
The Ministry of Defence rightly reviewed various ways of improving those houses. More money was needed. There was none. It considered a solution known as the targeted sale option; that is, the sale of empty properties no longer needed. I believe that 4,500 such quarters have already been sold. But in June 1995 it decided that the sale of those properties, many in poor condition, would not solve its problem. It looked instead at a new market study produced by NatWest and decided to sell off the whole defence estate portfolio, excluding those quarters in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to one buyer.
The plan provided for a 25-year lease-back arrangement for those properties that the Ministry of Defence needs at present to retain, and also involved a steady release of those retained estates so that a certain percentage of them reverts to the buyer during the 25-year period for redevelopment.
The buyer has the right to move service families from estates which are, in the majority, empty to new equivalent accommodation. Comparable or equivalent accommodation is a subjective question. Although the leaflet issued about the sale says that the MoD will have "substantial control" over which properties it chooses to hold and which it gives up, who defines "substantial"? The legal document is complicated.
The Secretary of State announced those plans in the other place in November 1995. He wrote on 28th November,
"To occupiers of all MoD homes".
That letter went to those in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Cyprus and other service families at that time serving outside England and Wales but who would be equally affected in future. He told them that the sale would not change their entitlement to married quarters and would not change the MoD's responsibility for managing, maintaining and allocating quarters. That would continue through the Defence Housing Executive, and the sale would enable the MoD to invest in upgrading the housing stock where necessary.
He concluded by saying that he would not sell the married quarters unless he could do so on the right terms and that meant not just a good price but full protection for the interests of occupants. In short, he said, it would either be a good deal or no sale. His key priority would be the interests and well-being of service families. At the same time, the very brief leaflet to which I have referred was distributed on the issue.
That decision was apparently regarded as an internal housekeeping decision by the Secretary of State which had, of course, full Treasury support. It was promulgated internally. I have concerns which I know to be widely shared not only by the families whose future is in question but by the Defence Select Committee in the other place. First, there is the fact that such a decision, which will affect every single service family at a time when defence has suffered constant threats, constant change and constant cuts, based on very
890
flawed arguments ever since Options for Change, and at a time when the services have been promised stability and no more changes, can be taken without any opportunity for Parliament to consider it. That is why it has been necessary to put forward the new clause.
The manner in which the decision has been put to the service families is calculated to create the greatest possible anxiety, uncertainty and fear for the future. At a time when recruitment is a serious problem and retention all important, it seems amazing that the concerns expressed by the Army Families Federation, the sister organisation representing the RAF, the British Legion and SSAFA have not been effectively addressed. Indeed, they have not been addressed at all. It is not enough simply to tell them that it will be all right on the day and that they should simply rely on the Secretary of State to do nothing which is not in their best interests. If there are real advantages for them in this radical proposal they have yet to be convinced. Anxious wives make anxious husbands. This is just the sort of threat to their already fragile security to make them decide to leave the services. Is that the Government's intention?
Perhaps I may cite some of the anxieties which service families, it seems to me, are fully justified in wishing to see addressed at once. Take entitlement, for instance. The terms of the agreement with the developer/purchaser allow the latter a site exchange option. Under this, if the purchaser wants to exchange a site currently occupied by a married quarters patch he must provide something which fulfils a number of criteria, including being suitable for a cohesive community such as a regimental patch would be. It must be comparable. But who will be the judge of that? The memorandum says that it will be an arbitrator, not the MoD. What becomes then of the service families living in the site which the developer wants and of the Secretary of State's assurance that the sale will have no impact on their rights or position as an occupant? In view of the possible profit in redevelopment, will not the landlord litigate before the arbitrator? The criteria are very broad and they must be open to many interpretations.
Still on the legal issues, the purchaser will after 25 years have the right, if it can establish that it has a genuine prospect of redeveloping an estate, to take that estate from the MoD and redevelop it. Who will decide that? The MoD is sufficiently aware of the dangers to have announced on 5th June to the Defence Select Committee that it would be creating a ministerial certificate which would allow the proper safeguards to be applied 25 years hence with a different Minister. What will be the legal status of that certificate on judicial review?
There are very many questions I could ask about the married quarters initiative but the hour is late. However, my chief concern is the disastrous effect on service morale which these and many other uncertainties and fears are having. There may be answers and I hope that there are, although I take leave to doubt whether that brand new agency, the Defence Housing Executive, and the MoD's lawyers can hope to negotiate on anything like equal terms with a large and rich international consortium. I cannot but remember too that the DHE will have been taught to think in terms of market forces rather than service morale as its first consideration.
I need hardly add that one of the anxieties felt in the services and shared by the Defence Select Committee is the implications for security of selling the defence estate to an international consortium, whether it is Japanese, American, Dutch or whatever. I quote those nationalities from the press alone, of course.
The committee was told that they had demonstrated an understanding of MoD and service priorities and because of that had made it to the short list. Well, they would, wouldn't they? But does it make it right when the security of the country is involved? Service families are, and feel themselves to be, particularly vulnerable. As Gerry Adams says, the IRA has not gone away. But that will not be the first consideration of the developers of the site.
There will be those who will argue, as the MoD does, that this is a marvellous deal because it will enable service living conditions to be improved and poor quarters will be upgraded over several years with the £100 million which it will be allowed to retain for that purpose from the sale.
There will be those, like the authors of the Bett Report, who will regard the probable mix of service and non-service families as a happy integration into society. There will be those who argue that in any event more and more families will choose to buy their own houses.
But there is a very important and significant section of service families who value and need the regimental patch, especially young 17 or 18 year-old wives with small children whose husbands may have been in Bosnia or in Northern Ireland for two years running at Christmas. They are vulnerable and need the support of the regimental family and the safety of a service environment which excludes drugs and violence.
They have not yet been consulted. Their representatives have been told that they are not to worry their pretty little heads. Their legitimate anxieties have not been dealt with. The machinery for proper consultation purports to exist—the very new Defence Housing Executive. But it proves that that executive is there to consult on everything but this plan.
The Minister has met representatives of the Army Families Federation at intervals. Of course he has, and with his usual courtesy. The housing project team did a presentation covering the time-frame for the project. The Defence Housing Executive, which started functioning only on 1st April of this year, is, according to the leaflet, taking attitude surveys and setting up local consultation groups. It has also issued a newsletter and brokered a customer charter. But its activities concern only questions of management. It is on those issues that its consultations take place, and it evidently regards the proposal to sell the married quarters estate as outside its remit.
If the representatives of the families remain as anxious as they undoubtedly are, that suggests that they are experiencing the not unusual form of government consultation which consists of telling them what will happen and not listening to or responding to their concerns. What listening has been done has been in
892
response to the Defence Select Committee, and that is very late. The ministerial certificate is one such response. That only proves my point that this was and is too important a national issue to be left to in-house decisions never discussed in Parliament.
But unless the MoD can really consult as opposed to simply saying, "This is what will happen. Don't worry. Father knows best", I assure the Minister, who I think will have had some indication of the anxieties felt when he answered my noble friend Lord Vivian in the House last week, that the feelings of doubt, turbulence, uncertainty and general vulnerability are real and dangerous. There will be no point in having nice, new, refurbished quarters, or at least not in terms of national defence, if the families have opted out of the services; and they will.
Therefore, I urge the Minister in the strongest terms to set in motion a real consultative exercise where answers to questions are given, and one which embraces all service families, and report the results back to both Houses to allow the Secretary of State, in the light of both the consultation and a general debate, to consider further effective measures designed to restore confidence and to respond to genuine concerns.
The Secretary of State said in his letter that he will not sell the married quarters unless he can do so on the right terms and,
"that means not just a good price but full protection for the interests of the occupants".
I am aware, largely I submit through the failure of the MoD to listen earlier to legitimate concerns, that time is short because the decision on the bid needs, on the present timetable, to be made in the summer. But fortunately the preliminary information memorandum on the married quarters estate contains a wise provision. It says clearly that:
"The Secretary of State may at his discretion amend the timetable, alter the basis of the transaction or decide not to proceed with it at any time".
I believe that we should not proceed with it, but I am asking him to amend the timetable to provide time for consultation and more thought and then to provide specific reassurance for the service families and the country, through a debate in Parliament, on the specific risks inherent in the proposals as they stand at present. It is the least we owe them.
I cannot stress too strongly that the Secretary of State has said in the clearest terms in the memorandum to would-be purchasers that the timetable may at his discretion be amended and the basis of the transaction altered at any time. There is still time and what he has offered is what we are asking for. But we wish Parliament to be part of the process on such a major national issue. I beg to move.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the clause and wholeheartedly support what she said. Members of the Armed Forces live in odd, varied accommodation during their service career: underwater in a submarine for three months; alone in a cockpit, thousands of feet up in the sky or scraping the earth's surface, cramped and breathing oxygen; or, as I know from first-hand

893
knowledge, in a trench, tent, snowhole, the back of a Warrior armoured car or tank. But we were all happy and confident that our families were secure in the married quarters provided by Her Majesty's Government.
But wait, my Lords: Prime Minister's Question Time, an Early Day Motion in the other place, all concerned with flogging our secure homes. So the married armed service personnel will not have the traditional landlord—Her Majesty's Government. No, the married quarters will be sold, the asset value changed—it will probably rise—and another landlord will purchase that vital asset of family security that ensures the spirit and cohesion of our Armed Forces.
Like all Ministers and Secretaries of State, the Minister of Defence is the Chancellor's poodle. For £1.5 billion he is prepared to disrupt the family atmosphere of the regiment, the naval base and the Royal Air Force base. It is recognised that there are 5,000 vacant married quarters, but rather than throw them on to the open market, why not allow the recently established Defence Housing Executive to conduct the sale and use the money to refurbish and repair the remaining existing married quarters? That is the one sure way of keeping our servicemen in the Armed Forces at this time when recruitment is low.
All Members of the Committee know that our Armed Forces are recognised for their high standard and versatility. In the past our Armed Forces gave us the freedom to have our own homes. Without the security of one landlord, the servicemen will look after themselves, buy their own house, probably find another job, if there is one available. It will undermine the confidence of "the patch", the ship, the pilots. If they do not find a job, they will then draw unemployment benefit and, much to the discomfort of the Government, increase the unemployment figures. The Chancellor ought to know that money can be burnt. Peace cannot and must not. Do not privatise the peacekeepers.
Lord Swinfen: Before supporting the amendment, I declare an interest. Two of my daughters are married to serving officers; and one is a serving officer herself. They are entitled, therefore, to service accommodation.
I understand that the proposal is to sell the service quarters on a 25 year lease-back. If an individual were going to buy a 25-year lease in a single dwelling, he would have considerable difficulty in raising funds from a building society. The building society would want at least a 60-year lease, preferably one for 99 years, or one for over 100 years. Therefore, there must be something in it for the purchaser in order to make him pay a price that the Treasury considers suitable—something approaching the figure on which a prudent building society would lend; in other words, something that would make the value the same as the length of lease.
Using my surveyor's hat, I assume that there must be very considerable redevelopment potential in the service quarters. The financier who funds the purchaser will not want to wait 25 years before seeing some return on his capital, and will put pressure on the purchaser to undertake some redevelopment as soon as possible, breaking up the married patches, cherry picking and
894
leaving odd bits and pieces of the most uncomfortable, inaccessible and undesirable of the quarters in the country.
What will happen at the end of the 25 year lease? The services will not necessarily have any right to continue. Will the Treasury find the funds to build those quarters all over again? It has got rid of them once. It might have to buy them again. Is this really a good financial move? It is better to maintain property than to have to replace it.
I suspect that the proposal has been thought up by the Treasury. I believe that there was a report in the papers about a year ago that the Treasury might have to move out of its building into another because it had been so unwise in the management of its building that it would cost too much to bring it up to standard. I wonder whether the Treasury has its thinking right on the service quarters.
What will be the position when our bases overseas run down, as will happen from time to time? We may open up others depending on the state of the world. But with the peace dividend about which everyone is talking at present it is more likely that our bases will be run down. We will bring our troops home, together with their families. In most cases the families are overseas with the troops at present and will need housing in this country. Do we want to be in the same position as the old Soviet Union which could not take its troops back from Germany because there was nowhere for them to live? That is the situation we appear to be heading towards.
The fighting unit, whether a regiment, battalion or a ship, needs to have its people readily accessible. The married quarters patch is useful because in an emergency someone can go round and get the men into operation with their unit. At the same time, when the men are overseas in a difficult and dangerous situation, the married patch is where the families are, giving each other mutual support in times of danger, considerable uncertainty, and probably unhappiness, not really knowing what is going on. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I hope that the Government pay attention to it. Even if they do not like this particular amendment, I hope they will do what my noble friend requests.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: Briefly, I support my noble friend Lady Park. I wish to make two points. Disposing of assets which one believes at the time to be surplus to requirement has very often been proved to be a false economy. My aunts always kept everything: short string, long string and a box of string too short to be of further use. The box of string too short to be of further use has proved very good for my grandchildren to make tails for shell mice with. Even fortune-tellers do not always get the future right; nor do governments.
My second point is that our servicemen and women are generally acknowledged, and certainly always in this Chamber, to be the best in the world. The cuts initiated by Options for Change, and increased since, have made for a feeling of instability. If families feel that they may

895
have to move at short notice, it is very important that they are confident of having suitable accommodation into which they can move. With this new plan of sale, the families do not have that confidence. They are seriously upset and worried about it. This is not the way to keep them happy and secure. With unhappy families, we shall have unhappy servicemen—or none at all. Even the birds of the air have nests.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It will come as no surprise to the Committee that, with one qualification that I shall express, I support the amendment. The qualification is very simple. The Committee will notice that my name is not down to this amendment, for the simple reason that I should like the Government to scrub the whole scheme. I do not want them to become involved in any detailed negotiation of this sort. I should like them to abandon the whole exercise. So we start from that position.
After Options for Change, Front Line First and all the other changes that have taken place, I cannot think of anything more destructive of morale in the Armed Forces than suddenly to announce that married quarters for service personnel are to be sold off to the highest bidder. It is the most extraordinary operation that the Government are now embarked upon.
I am told that the price will be £1.5 billion or thereabouts. That is an interesting figure. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very glad to receive £1.5 billion if he could receive it without any destruction of morale in our Armed Forces. I was told by the noble Earl at Question Time the other day that international capital will be involved—because £1.5 billion is a big sum; the Japanese, the Germans and the Americans will be involved, or whoever it is. I am also told that there are amendments to the previous fiasco of trying to sell off bits and pieces of the MoD married quarters estate, which cost the taxpayer something in the order of £5 million to wind up some curious company that had been set up and did not work. Matters had rumbled on, there was some curious arrangement and it all seemed to run into the ground, at some cost. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is on the Front Bench, responded to questions in his position as Minister at the time.
The noble Earl will have noticed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, pointed out, that certain events have occurred in another place. Indeed there has been some publicity in the newspapers about this matter. I hope very much that the noble Earl will have taken on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. I hope that he will respond to the noble Baroness's amendment in a positive spirit, not echoing the words of the Prime Minister at Question Time today, saying, "Fine", but saying, "No, we shall concede that this is not the right thing to do and not the right way to go forward. It would be destructive of morale in our Armed Forces and we believe now that the time has come to go back on certain ideas that certain consultants in the Ministry of Defence seemed to have suggested which have been adopted by the Ministry of Defence. We shall junk that and attend to what has been expressed in the Committee in this
896
Chamber this evening and also what has been expressed in another place on another occasion". I hope very much that the noble Earl will be flexible on this matter and be able at least to grant the noble Baroness, Lady Park, her amendment, which from my point of view is only a half-way house. I should like the full house, but, in the words of Hesiod, half a loaf is better than no loaf.
Earl Russell: It falls to me to complete the circle of every quarter of the Chamber. It is not for me to prescribe particular solutions on this subject, but we have heard tonight the kind of feelings to which any prudent government will listen. I am sure that the noble Earl is a prudent member of the Government and I am sure that he has listened.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): I listened with great care to my noble friend and the other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I say immediately that I yield to nobody in my respect for my noble friend and her motives in tabling these amendments. I recognise that she is wholly sincere in her point of view, even though that point of view rests, as I shall hope to demonstrate, on some fundamental misapprehensions.
However, for her part I hope that my noble friend will recognise the Government's unshakeable commitment to service housing. Members of the Committee should be in no doubt that providing good homes for our service personnel and their families is and always has been our key objective. We also remain committed to stability, to the preservation of the married quarters patch and to making rapid advances towards improving the quality of quarters. Those are key tasks of government and our proposals for service housing, far from shying away from them, instead reaffirm our commitment to them.
My noble friend's amendments refer to consultation and parliamentary approval, both on the face of it unexceptionable principles. But it is clear to me and no doubt to the Committee that what we are considering here are in practice wrecking amendments, amendments which, if adopted at this late stage of the sale of the married quarters estate, would effectively derail the whole process.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl at this early stage of his speech. I am sure he has a very elegant speech written by people I know not. This is not a wrecking amendment. This is not an early stage. It might be a late stage in the Government, but there is plenty of time. We do not have to go through all this palaver to get £1.5 billion just before a General Election so that the Government can give it away to the electorate. That is not the problem. The problem is to find some reasonable solution to the married quarters estate. It is not a wrecking amendment at all. If I may speak for the Government in waiting, we are perfectly happy to accept it.
Earl Howe: I am sure the noble Lord is extremely generous in that regard, but I beg to differ. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Committee felt constrained to accept this amendment it would severely damage, if

897
not derail completely, the plans which the Government have laid out quite openly over the past eight to nine months. We are at a late stage. However, I hope that my remarks will assuage the noble Lord's concerns a little.
The choice before us is a clear one: either to reject the amendments and so complete the final leg of a journey which began with our 1992 manifesto commitment to improve the quality and management of service housing; or to adopt the amendments and effectively turn back to the ways of the past. It gives me no pleasure to remind the Committee—though I shall do so—what that past amounted to. The tale of the MoD's mismanagement of housing stock has been an extremely sorry one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I cannot accept the noble Earl coming before this Committee and reciting a history of mismanagement by his own department. I find that absurd.
Earl Howe: That remark from the noble Lord clearly shows that he has absolutely no understanding whatever of the background to the Government's proposals. If he is not prepared to acknowledge that there is a severe empty homes problem at the MoD, then he has not begun to address these issues.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Earl—
Earl Howe: I am sorry. The noble Lord has interrupted me twice and I am not prepared to give way a third time unless he wishes to raise a particularly substantive point.
Even today, after all the efforts of recent years, one married quarter in five stands empty. We shall always need some spare capacity, but for the MoD to own and pay for maintaining and securing over 12,000 empty married quarters in England and Wales alone is financially and morally unacceptable. While mismanaging our stock in that way, we have not even succeeded in providing a decent housing service for our Armed Forces.
Inadequate and ill-planned investment has left far too many of our service families living in run-down quarters, as my noble friend acknowledged—in the worst cases in conditions approaching squalor. That is the extreme. It is not the generality but there are places of which we are ashamed. It is not wholly surprising that that should be so. The priority of the Ministry and of our Armed Forces over decades has been defence. In any competition for resources, whether finance or management attention, a function such as housing would always lose out to the demands of activities and programmes more central to our primary role. It is simply no good to argue, as my noble friend and others seem to be doing, that the right solution for service housing is to do as we have done in the past but to do it better. We tried that and it did not work. We need fundamental change. That is what the sale of the married quarters estate will achieve.
As we move to the final stages of the sale process, two great prizes are now within our grasp. First, the sale will finally resolve our long-standing ability to dispose of the thousands of service quarters we no longer need.
898
The means will be to hand. The MoD will be able to relinquish unwanted properties simply by cancelling a lease at six months' notice. No longer will we be required to play the estate agent. The incentive will be there too as old habits of hoarding properties for which we have no real requirement are subjected to the discipline of paying rent.
Secondly, we will at last have the resources to carry through the urgent programme of upgrading poor quality housing which has rightly been a long-held service aspiration. We will set aside £100 million from the sale proceeds for a massive investment programme which will enable us to get the bulk of our quarters throughout the United Kingdom up to grade one condition in five to seven years. We shall be free of the burden of attempting to deal with quarters that we no longer want and shall be able to be sure that the houses we do need are brought up to the standard that our service families deserve.
Why the opposition? I am the first to appreciate that a degree of uncertainty in this sensitive area was to be expected. But legitimate concerns seem to have been overlaid with some fundamental misapprehensions. My ministerial colleagues and I have dealt with these so extensively in so many different fora over recent weeks and months that one begins to feel that certain of our interlocutors are simply determined not to hear. But I shall try again briefly to lay out the facts, the first and foremost of which is that, setting aside the upgrading of the housing stock, the sale should make little or no discernible difference to the occupants of the estate. I shall look at some of the specific concerns that have been raised.
The sale will have no impact on service personnel's entitlement to quarters. The MoD is, and will remain, committed to providing housing for those personnel who wish to exercise their entitlement. Our policy remains, as I emphasised in this Chamber last week, to provide the right houses in the right location at the right time. That policy is quite unaffected by the sale. I think it is worth reminding my noble friend that that policy is in no way limited by or to the quarters that comprise the existing estate.
What about interference by the new purchaser? There is no question of individual occupants having to have any dealings with the new purchaser of the estate. For maintenance and general customer service, they will continue to look, as in the past, to the MoD and there will be no implications whatever for security.
Noble Lords have referred to the patch. There is no threat to patch life. We fully understand the importance of preserving cohesive service housing communities, with all that they imply for solidarity and mutual support. But we have catered for that by ensuring that under the sale arrangements we will retain substantial control of which quarters we choose to retain and which to relinquish. The limited opportunities—and they are limited—available to the new landlord to secure vacant possession of individual housing sites are for this reason confined to whole sites. He has no scope for introducing undesirable neighbours or cherry-picking the best houses. Nor will he be able to use these limited

899
opportunities to cream off the best housing. The reason he will not is that detailed, legally enforceable criteria will ensure that any site exchange will go ahead only if the exchange site offered is as good as or better than the original. The ministerial veto on operational grounds will protect us from losing key sites to redevelopment.
Why then should we object to consultation? First, because the analogy implied with local authority housing and large-scale voluntary transfers of local authority housing to a housing association is, I suggest to my noble friend, entirely misplaced. LSVTs have real implications for tenants in terms of their rights and legal position and of their rents and the maintenance service that they receive. But, as I have explained, none of that applies in the case of the occupants of our married quarters under the proposed sale.
However, there is another reason on which I invite my noble friend to reflect. We have already consulted and communicated extensively. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the occupants of all married quarters in England and Wales to explain the position last autumn when the sale was originally announced. A parallel communication went to all personnel worldwide, as have subsequent updating messages. And, of course, the relevant service staffs up to and including the chiefs of staff have been fully involved in the development of our proposals since their inception. Indeed, they have had a major part in shaping them. Hence the chiefs' agreement that the proposals satisfy the interests of the services, a fundamental pre-condition, as we have made clear all along, for completing the transaction.
What then would be the effects of the proposed amendments? As I began by saying, and I repeat, they would simply derail this long sought opportunity finally to get our service housing right. We are in the closing stages of the sale process. It is essential to maintain a tight time-scale if the process is to be managed in a way which ensures the best possible outcome for both the services and the taxpayer. It suggests that the consultation down the chain of command which we have had was an inadequate way of safeguarding the individual serviceman's interests, with profound implications for the future management of our Armed Forces.
Finally and perversely—and this is a point which my noble friend herself adverted to—it would hamstring all our future surplus property disposals, sale or no sale, by introducing further delay and uncertainty into the process. Far from getting the 20 per cent. vacancy rate down, we would be looking at additional thousands of properties standing empty. I doubt very much whether that is really what my noble friend wants to see.
Perhaps I may deal with another misrepresentation that all this is about short-term financial opportunism and getting receipts into government coffers. When one considers the history of this proposal and the four years' hard work which has led up to the point we have reached today, that accusation is self-evidently absurd. Equally absurd is the idea that a one-off capital receipt can be used to finance tax cuts. They can only be founded on long-term affordability, as the Committee will only too
900
readily appreciate. We are doing what we are doing because it is the right answer for the Ministry of Defence, the services and the occupants of married quarters. It would be tragic if this opportunity were to be sabotaged at the point when a successful outcome is at last within reach. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on that and on the assurances that I have repeated tonight.
As I said, I have listened carefully to my noble friend, as I hope I always do. I undertake to her now that if she withdraws her amendments I shall give very careful consideration to the points she has made between now and Report stage. There was much in her speech that was necessarily condensed. I shall also be happy to meet my noble friend privately to talk through all the issues in more detail. I hope that she will feel able to respond to that suggestion, which I make in a constructive spirit, so as to ensure that we really do achieve the right result for the services, service families and the nation's housing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Earl concludes his peroration, can he answer me two points? First, will he accept that he has produced this evening a denigration of his own department and previous Ministers such as I have not heard in my 10 years' experience in this House? He has accused the MoD, of which he is a Minister, of mismanagement, bungling, incapacity, incoherence and incompetence. Who is responsible for the MoD? Is it not Ministers? It is no good shifting the responsibility to civil servants, which the noble Earl seemed to be trying to do. Therefore, if that is the case, as the noble Earl said it was, should not Ministers be taking responsibility for the shambles that he has described?
Secondly, he said that £1.5 billion coming into the coffers will not finance tax cuts. Does the noble Earl not understand the public accounts system and that the whole purpose of privatisation in the 1980s and 1990s and the use of North Sea oil proceeds was to finance tax cuts?
Earl Howe: It gave me no pleasure to rehearse the shortcomings of the Ministry of Defence over the past few years in disposing of surplus housing. Indeed, Ministers must take their share of responsibility because they dictate policy. That is precisely why we are at this point today. It is because Ministers wish to see something done about the problem that these proposals are now before the Committee. As I said, I believe that they are the right ones. I do not wish in the least to conceal the problems that they are meant to solve because they are very real ones.
On the noble Lord's second point, I do not accept that the amount of money that is likely to be achieved from the sale will make any difference at all to consideration of his Budget speech by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. I am not prepared to disclose at the Dispatch Box the order of money that we expect to receive from the sale, but it is by no means the largest privatisation

901
that the Government have undertaken and I am confident that what I said earlier about its significance for tax cuts was absolutely correct.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may refer him back to his point about maintenance. I think he said that the property would continue to be maintained by the Ministry of Defence. There is commonly a full repairing and insuring lease. Will the MoD be paying for all the maintenance or will it be in the position of a tenant who can demand from an ordinary landlord that the landlord carries out certain maintenance and makes proper provision for water, heating and all the rest of it?
Also, what will happen at the end of the suggested 25-year tenancy? Will the MoD have to hand the property back to the freeholder in top condition? That could be very expensive because the property will have to be put into that condition. If the MoD follows a normal lease it will have to redecorate all the property both internally and externally within the last six months or year of the lease—a terrific cost—and carry out any repairs to make certain that the property is up to standard.
My noble friend also said that if a site was going to be exchanged for development, it would have to be exchanged for a site as good as, or better than, the existing site. Who decides: the MoD or the freeholder, because the freeholder will argue until he is blue in the face that the site that he wants to give in exchange is an excellent one? The fact that it is right next-door to and down wind of the local sewage works will not occur to him.
Finally, has this matter been discussed in another place? I have not read any reports of it being discussed there and I would suggest that if it has not been discussed in another place, it is probably the duty of this Committee to incorporate the amendment into the Bill to ensure that it is discussed in another place when the Bill returns there. After all, Members of another place are the elected representatives of this nation.
Earl Russell: The Minister illustrated why I have said before that according to governments there are only two categories of amendment—the unnecessary and the wrecking. Having listened to a great deal of what has been said, this amendment is clearly not unnecessary, so perhaps that is why the Minister thinks that it is wrecking.
The noble Earl has listened to expressions of feeling that I should have thought any government would be wise to heed. He said, "Some of our interlocutors do not wish to listen". Between the Front Benches that sort of thing may be common currency. One always thinks that the Front Bench opposite does not wish to listen. Sometimes one is right; sometimes one is not. But I hope that the noble Earl will make clear that he did not intend to apply that remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. If he did, I cannot think of anyone more inappropriate to whom it should be applied.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I certainly did not intend to imply that my noble friend had failed to listen. We have had some extremely helpful discussions, as my noble friend has been kind enough to acknowledge. I hope that I do not put words into her mouth if I say that my noble friend accepted one or two of the key points put to her. The discussions to which I referred related much more to the representatives of service families. They always approach meetings with me in a spirit of good will. I very much enjoy those meetings. For reasons that I cannot discern, I do not believe that I have made headway with them.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked about the maintenance of the estate. He is quite correct. The maintenance of the married quarters will remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence in the shape of the Defence Housing Executive. The landlord's responsibilities to upgrade will not exist to any substantial degree. One has to qualify that to an extent by saying that negotiations with the final purchaser, whoever it may be, have not yet taken place. At the end of the tenancy it is envisaged that the Ministry's responsibility will extend to handing back properties that are no longer needed in a habitable condition. The Landlord and Tenant Act provides the Ministry of Defence with security of tenure at the end of the 25-year term. Should the Ministry want to renew the lease it will be able to do so other than in the very narrowly defined circumstances in which the landlord wants to redevelop. I shall be glad to write to my noble friend and provide further details.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may intervene before my noble friend moves on. I believe I am correct in saying that under the Landlord and Tenant Act even if the tenant has the right to extend the lease he must put the property into good condition. If the property is not in good condition the landlord has grounds for not extending the lease.
Earl Howe: The agreement will provide that the property must be in a habitable condition. It is not our intention to let the properties decay into an uninhabitable condition. I do not believe there is any real difference between my noble friend and myself on this matter.
Lord Swinfen: But "habitable condition" is not as high a condition as "good condition". The landlord would require that the property be in good condition. There may be a capital cost to the Ministry of Defence—in other words, the taxpayer—at the end of the first 25 years. My noble friend may not be able to answer me now, but it is a point that should be made and therefore I make it.
Earl Howe: I do not believe that much separates my noble friend and myself. We intend to maintain the property in good condition. However, I will write to him to clarify the matter since I understand his concerns.
As to the site exchange and who decides it, over the past few months a very great deal of time has been spent with our lawyers drawing up detailed conditions on

903
which the site exchange option may be exercised. Those conditions are very narrowly circumscribed. It is not simply a matter of an independent person or arbitrator taking a subjective view. Properly formulated cases will have to be presented, if that is required. He or she will decide on the basis of the conditions drawn up in the legal agreement whether or not a site exchange meets all the conditions. That is how it would be decided. I stress that the conditions are extremely rigid. They are not such that a coach and horses can be driven through them, about which my noble friend Lady Park has some anxiety.
My noble friend referred to discussion in another place. I can tell him that the matter of the married quarters estate was debated recently during the debate on the Royal Air Force. I am aware of certain intentions by Members of another place to bring forward this matter for debate at an early stage. I cannot, of course, comment further on that because I have not been privy to those discussion. No doubt it will be up to Members of another place, if they so choose, to bring forward such a Motion.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have supported me at this late hour in what I believe to be a very important issue.
Turning to my noble friend, the Minister, I had, in preparing what I was going to say, written that I would thank him for the small morsels of comfort I thought I might receive. I had not expected to be told that I was promoting a wrecking amendment. I thought I had lent over backwards to try to produce a formula which would allow the Government to do what I consider they should do: keep the word of the Secretary of State in his statement in the memorandum, that he would be prepared, and he felt himself free, to change the timetable, vary the conditions or abandon the idea. I have not urged abandoning the idea because I am perfectly prepared, as I hope many will be, to be convinced that the perception of anxiety, and it is a serious and wide perception felt by those who are most affected—the families—remains and needs to be allayed. I fear that remains true.
People will say the devil is in the detail, and that is part of the problem, but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I respect the Minister for having stated how disastrously things have gone in the past. I share the shame, as everybody does, but I think it is probably right and fair that it should be admitted. I do not think it makes any difference at all to the duty which we have to make sure that disastrous mistakes of a different kind are not made in the future.
Incidentally, I made no reference to or comparison with local authorities, nor did I say anything about the Treasury. I reserve my views on the Treasury—I expect most people do.
I shall make one minor point, which I would like answered at some stage, and that concerns the issue of rents. I understand that rents are index-linked, will be reviewed every five years and will be a guaranteed figure or the index-linked figure, whichever is the higher. I cannot help feeling that every detail that I come
904
upon in what I have read and studied so far seems always to be to the financial advantage of the developer. I suppose that makes sense if one is considering issues in terms of money only, but I happen to feel that the riches of the country lie in people, and in the Armed Forces in particular. Therefore, I remain to be convinced and although I have the greatest respect for my noble friend the Minister and I feel sure he believes every word he says, I am not able to feel the same touching trust as he does.
I will, indeed, withdraw my amendment because to test the feeling of the House at this late hour, and with the numbers present, would clearly be absurd. That does not mean that I will go away. Like the IRA, I will not. I will consider what the Minister has said, and I will be very happy to be further instructed, but I intend to return to the matter at Report stage, with the permission of the House. I truly hope that, having made their macho statements, the Government will be able to reconsider and produce a more positive reply.
There is an answer to be found. I have little doubt that if the Government are right in saying that this is a good thing, a right thing, and has been carefully thought out, then all we need is to have that demonstrated to us on the Floor of this place and debated fully. I shall return to the issue on Report and on Third Reading. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 270BB:
Before Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
(".—(1) A local housing authority shall have power to provide, inside or outside its area, a facility whereby occupiers of dwelling houses or other residential accommodation who are vulnerable as a result of old age, disability or other special reason may, by agreement, be connected to an emergency communication system.
(2) A local housing authority may make a reasonable charge for any facility provided by it under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: This new clause forms a modest and uncontroversial addition to the Bill. It regularises the position which exists in local authorities up and down the country. Many local authorities provide alarm systems for vulnerable elderly people in their area for a charge. The ADC is worried that there seems to be a problem as to whether the authorities can charge for the service and therefore provide it. That is causing anxiety to members of the association. So I am bringing forward the amendment to try to get the position sorted out.
The service can clearly be provided to council tenants, but we are talking about those who are not council tenants. The ADC has made considerable efforts to try to negotiate, initially with the DoE. It was then referred to the Department of Health and had considerable discussions with it. It at first suggested that the provision could be tagged on to a 1994 Bill. Eventually the matter was referred back to the DoE, and that is where we now are.
When one of the Members of the other place approached the DoE it was suggested that the Member should again go to the Department of Health. This

905
matter cannot be sent around the departments and not clarified at some stage. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider this matter and try to clarify the situation for local authorities and allow them to continue to provide this much-needed service for people living in their area. It should clearly be for the vulnerable only and not those who do not need extra services.
The Audit Commission's 1995 annual report stated:
"Auditors have not been eager to mount a challenge since the amounts involved are not usually significant and the approach fits in with the Government's care in the community initiative. The Commission would strongly support primary legislation to enable districts to provide such schemes".
Notwithstanding that helpful statement, some auditors are raising questions with authorities and putting the brake on further developments. That is creating anxiety for existing developments in case some kind of a challenge is mounted. I strongly urge the Minister to consider this small change in the legislation. It regularises an existing position, does not introduce anything new, is not political, is not controversial and does not wreck anything. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Swinfen: I strongly support the amendment. It is eminently sensible. It seems absolutely daft that an organisation or a local authority can provide such a service to some houses in a street or small area and not to others. It would cut costs in the long run and it would be most sensible.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps in a non-political spirit I may show solidarity with the noble Baroness. I have seen these systems and know their value. I was surprised to see the cloud that might be hanging over them. The noble Baroness is entirely right to seek clarification and a resolution and not to leave the matter on the Whitehall merry-go-round.
Lord Lucas: It gives me no pleasure whatever to disappoint my noble friends and so I shall not. The work is in hand. It is our intention to consult the local authority associations and others on our conclusions and proposals and we expect to do so soon. The amendment before us raises many problems which we would hope to solve in the course of those consultations, and I hope that with that considerable comfort my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Flather: It is rather surprising that my noble friend says that he is consulting the local authorities, as the amendment has been put forward by the Association of District Councils, which is the local authorities' association. It is involved in the issue; no other local authority association is involved. The county councils and parish councils are not involved. Only the Association of District Councils has anything at all to do with the issue. I am amazed that as this amendment has come directly from the ADC my noble friend suggests that he is involved in a consultation with it. Is it a consultation in the future?
Lord Lucas: The consultation will be shortly in the future. It has not happened yet and I believe that this is
906
the first time we have indicated publicly that it is about to happen. I am not surprised that the local authorities did not know about it, but they do now.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether the results will be ready to be dealt with before the end of the Bill, because it seems to be an excellent vehicle for this matter?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe that Members of the Committee opposite are pressing the Minister rather hard. He has said that there will be consultation. If I may advise the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, we ought to leave it at that. It is absurd to suggest that consultation can take place and that it can come immediately.
Lord Lucas: Being supported by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, makes me extremely nervous. I shall have to read my notes carefully to make sure that I have said the right thing. On this, as on other occasions, I believe that the noble Lord is right.
Baroness Flather: Perhaps I may finish what I was going to say. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I did not rise to advise him not to interrupt my noble friend so many times and perhaps he will refrain from advising me on this particular issue.
The matter was first raised in 1994. It went to the Department of Health and was then referred back to the DoE. It was referred back by the DoE for the purposes of going back to the Department of Health. It would be helpful if my noble friend would look at the history of this matter and talk to members of the ADC, because I am afraid that if this opportunity passes there will not be another for some time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 191 to 194 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Miscellaneous provisions]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 270BC:
Page 175, line 48, at end insert—
("Additional succession arrangements by agreement
.—(1) In section 89 of the Housing Act 1985 (succession to periodic tenancy) after subsection (4) insert—
"(5) A tenancy which is a secure tenancy may contain a term providing for succession in cases where no succession takes place under this Act and may contain provisions restricting the removal or amendment of such a term."
(2) In section 17 of the Housing Act 1988 (succession to periodic tenancy) after subsection (5) insert—
("(6) A tenancy which is an assured tenancy may contain a term providing for succession in cases where no succession takes place under the provisions of this Act and may contain provisions restricting the removal or amendment of such a term".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to give legal effect to agreements between tenants and landlords in relation to extensions to the right to succeed in the case of people such as carers and same sex

907
couples. The prospective successor has no right at present to enforce the contract since he is not a party to it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Secure tenants enjoy the right of succession. This means that their spouse, or a close relative who has been living in the home for the previous 12 months, may succeed to the tenancy on his death. Assured tenants also have the right of succession for the spouse or someone living with the tenant as husband and wife. In both cases there can only be one succession.
The amendment seeks to extend the right of succession by allowing a landlord to insert a clause into the tenancy agreement to provide for succession where no statutory right exists. Despite its superficial attractions, I believe it to be unnecessary.
There was considerable discussion of succession rights in another place. Examples were cited of unfortunate cases. As a result the Housing Minister gave an undertaking to issue unequivocal guidance to local authorities on how they should deal with such cases. The guidance was issued on 14th May and addresses the same problem as these amendments—the case where a member of the household dies and there is another member of the household left who does not have the right to succeed—but in the context of local authorities' general role in ensuring effective use and fair allocation of their housing stock.
The circular advises that where members of a household have a long-term commitment to their home, local authorities should normally grant a joint tenancy. This will ensure that other adult members of the household who would not otherwise have the right of succession can remain in the house or flat after the tenants' death. Where there is no joint tenancy, and the tenant dies, provided the remaining person has been living with the tenant in the year before the tenant's death; or had been looking after the tenant; or had accepted responsibility for the tenant's dependants, the guidance states the local authority should normally grant a tenancy to the remaining person.
The tenant's guarantee produced by the Housing Corporation already contains some advice on this point for assured tenants of housing associations. It is proposed to amend the guarantee later this year to reflect the position set out in Circular 7/96 as well as the legislative changes in the Bill.
We believe therefore that there is no need to attempt to extend statutory succession rights in the way in which the amendment suggests because of the substantive advice offered by the circular, which has been well received by local authorities, and the tenant's guarantee.
The amendment would give social landlords too wide a discretion to add to succession rights. It suggests that any person who does not have a statutory entitlement to succeed to a tenancy could be given a tenancy. This undermines the generous package of succession rights that exist already.
The amendment may appear to offer greater opportunity to those sharing a home but in reality it leaves the initiative solely with the landlord, allowing
908
him to pick and choose on a case by case basis. Circular 7/96 on the other hand offers firm advice to local authorities on how these cases should normally be dealt with. A person left in a home after the death of a tenant will be quite clear as to what he might expect the local authority policy to be and will be in a position to draw the Department of the Environment's advice to the authority's attention.
With that comfort, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I must confess that I am too weary to know whether I am comforted. I do not know whether guidance can enable enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable agreement but it would clearly be inappropriate to pursue the matter at this hour. I shall read, in the light of day, what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 270BD:
Page 175, line 48, at end insert—
("Extension of certain rights to tenants of registered social landlords
In Chapter I of Part I of Housing Act 1988 (assured tenancies) after section 19 (restriction on levy of distress for rent) insert—
"Extension of certain rights to tenants of registered social landlords.
19A.—(1) Unless otherwise stated, references in this section to a section or a Schedule are references to a section of or a Schedule to the Housing Act 1985.
(2) The provisions of sections 87 to 90 (succession on death of tenant) shall apply on the death of an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant and section 17 of this Act (succession to assured periodic tenancy by spouse) shall not have application in such cases.
(3) The provisions of sections 91 to 94 (assignment, lodgers and subletting) shall apply to an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant and section 15 of this Act (limited prohibition on assignment etc. without consent) shall not have application in such cases.
(4) Sections 96 to 101 (which deal with tenant's improvements) and section 105 (consultation on matters of housing management) shall apply to an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant".").
The noble Baroness said: This is a similar amendment to extend the rights enjoyed by law by secure tenants of registered social landlords to assured tenants. At present the right is not a matter of law but of grace and guidance. The Minister has just referred to the tenants' guarantee. I seek to make the matter one of statutory right. I understand that there are quite frequently disputes as to whether someone has succeeded and the suitability or appropriateness of re-housing following succession. A significant number of cases are resolved only just short of court proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I think I can fully support the spirit behind this amendment which seeks to extend to assured tenants of registered social landlords a number of statutory rights currently enjoyed by secure tenants. But I do not believe the amendment itself is necessary.
Clearly it is reasonable that assured tenants of registered social landlords should be treated no less favourably than secure tenants. But there is more than

909
one way of achieving this. Assured tenants already enjoy the rights which the noble Baroness wishes to extend to them. But they enjoy them as contractual rather than statutory rights.
Housing associations and the other registered social landlords introduced by this Bill are and will be regulated by the housing corporations. The corporations have a power under the Housing Associations Act 1985 to issue guidance approved by the Secretary of State. They have in fact done so. If landlords do not comply with the guidance the corporations have various remedies available to bring them into line.
One element of this guidance is the Tenants' Guarantee. This document sets out very clearly what rights and services tenants are entitled to under an assured tenancy. All the rights which the noble Baroness wishes to see extended to assured tenants are already set out in paragraphs C6 and C7 on page 5 of the current version of the Tenants' Guarantee. These paragraphs list the additional contractual rights which the corporation advises landlords to include within an assured tenancy agreement.
The Housing Corporation's regulatory system is tried and tested and works well. I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees that what is important is that assured tenants should have similar rights to secure tenants, not the mechanisms used to achieve this. They have and will have those rights. If the noble Baroness knows of any circumstances where those rights have been abrogated or not granted properly, I hope that she will draw them to our attention or that of the Housing Corporation.
Baroness Hamwee: Mechanisms are important. I thank the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 195 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 270C not moved.]
Clauses 196 to 199 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 270D not moved.]
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 176, line 9, column 3, leave out ("32") and insert ("33").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 185. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 176, column 3, leave out line 11.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 272 concerns Section 60 of the Housing Associations Act 1985. It is, I fear, one which slipped through the net at an earlier stage of the Bill. Before Report in another place, Schedule 3 contained a long list of minor amendments and repeals to other legislation which were consequential on Part I of the Bill. At Report stage those amendments were taken out of the Bill because they were essentially routine. They will be included in an order which we intend to make under Clause 54 later in
910
the summer. That is a point which we discussed earlier. One of those amendments concerns Section 58 of the 1985 Act under which local authorities have powers to promote and assist housing associations and to which Section 60 is directly linked.
We therefore consider that Sections 58 and 60 should be dealt with together in the order rather than separately. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 273 to 275A:
Page 176, line 19, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 79(6) to (10). In section 92(2), the words from "but" to the end.")

Page 177, line 2, column 3, leave out ("56(4),").
Page 177, line 12, at end insert—

("1987 c.31.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

In section 6(9), the words "(subject to section 9(9))". In section 9, in subsection (1)(a), the words "by virtue of any provision of sections 6 to 8", in subsection (1)(b), the words in parentheses and. in subsection (9), the definition of "the protected interest". In section 20(1), in the definition of "the protected interest", the words "(subject to section 9(9))".")

Page 177, line 12, at end insert—

("1987 c. 31.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Section 24(2)(a)(ii).")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 273 to 275A en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendments Nos. 188, 242, 251 and 246C respectively.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 275B:
Page 182, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 6, in paragraphs 5(1) and 6(1), the words "with the consent of the Treasury".")

The noble Lord said: Paragraph 9(1)(d) of Schedule 15 abolishes the requirements for Treasury consent for payment of remuneration, allowances and pensions to the chairman, deputy chairman, and members of the Housing Corporation Board, as contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 6 to the Housing Associations Act 1985. The repeals of the relevant words in those paragraphs do not appear in Part XIII of Schedule 16 and the amendment corrects that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 200 agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 275C:
After Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS
(" .—(1) In this Act and the enactments set out in subsection (3) below, references to persons living together as husband and wife shall be treated as including persons of the same sex living together in a corresponding relationship and "member of the family" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In this Act and the enactments set out in subsection (3) below, where "member of the family" would include a person living together with another as husband and wife it shall also include a person of the same sex living together with another in a corresponding relationship.
(3) The enactments referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above are the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1988.
(4) In the enactments set out in subsection (6) below, references to persons living together as husband and wife shall be treated as including persons of the same sex living together in a corresponding relationship.
(5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in the enactments set out in subsection (6) below, a person living together with another as that other's husband or wife is a member of that other's family and this includes a person living together with another person of the same sex in a corresponding relationship.
(6) The enactments referred to in subsections (4) and (5) above are the Rent Act 1977, the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, the Prevention From Eviction Act 1977 and Part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
(7) In Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977 references to "member of the family" do not include a person living together with the original tenant as husband or wife for the purposes of that person succeeding the tenant.
(8) In sections 3 and 4 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 references to "member of the family" do not include a person living together with the original occupier as husband or wife for the purposes of that person succeeding the occupier.").
The noble Earl said: This is another of a series of amendments that deals with succession to tenancies. This point concerns succession to tenancies among same sex couples. When two people live together, care for each other and possibly care for each other through a long terminal illness, it seems extremely harsh that on the death of one party the survivor is thrown out on to the street. I cannot see that this is in the public interest. It is almost always better that survivors of a partnership should be allowed to stay on in the place which they know and with which they are familiar.
The right to succession in tenancies concerns a number of different types of succession. There has been a considerable amount of debate about local authority tenancies. In 1993 in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Falkland, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the Government intend shortly to issue guidance to all local housing authorities. That guidance has just been issued and I welcome it. I am glad to see it.
However, we have also to consider tenancies in the private sector. Those cannot be altered simply by guidance because guidance cannot purchase on the common law of property. In terms of common humanity
912
and common sense it is always a good idea that we should recognise the world as it is. In the world as it is, these are partnerships as in any other partnerships. Therefore, it makes sense that succession to tenancies should happen to them as to any other. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We believe quite clearly that what we have set out in guidance is the right approach which is flexible and wide ranging. When the guidance which applies to local authorities through the medium of the tenants' guarantee is reformed—to some extent the provision is there already—it will be applied to Housing Corporation tenants.
In practice, I do not believe that there will be any difference between tenants of a local authority and tenants of a housing association. We prefer to leave the provision the way it is, with discretion in individual cases but very strong guidance as to the principles involved. Not least, I point out to the noble Earl the problems in the particular wording that he has chosen for his amendment; namely, "corresponding relationship" in reference to people living together as man and wife. If a couple happen to be enjoying a platonic relationship it would mean that one could not succeed to the tenancy of the other. That is not a distinction we wish to make in legislation.
Earl Russell: I take the Minister's point about a platonic relationship. The same point had occurred to me. If there is a regular partnership of this sort—and one knows of such—I would go along with the Minister in arguing that they, too, should have claims to succession. I am grateful to him for making that point.
But of course that situation is not unknown inside a legal marriage—as the case of King Edward the Confessor illustrates. I am more interested in probing the Minister's points about the guidance. I am happy with the wording of the guidance that I have in my hand. It states that the local authority should normally grant a tenancy to the remaining person or persons, either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation subject to the local authority being satisfied that there are no adverse implications from the joint tenancy for good use of its housing stock and for its ability to continue to provide for housing need.
The Minister will appreciate that a good many of those words cannot apply to the private sector. He is arguing in effect that, because this will become good practice, it will leach out into the private sector in effect by a process of osmosis. He knows that processes of osmosis take time. I should be grateful for a little more explanation as to how he sees this process working—because on how it works a great deal depends as to how satisfied I am with his reply.
Lord Lucas: Clearly we want to be cautious about legislating in this kind of area for the private sector. For instance, the new clause could have unwanted side effects on private sector landlords. It is the Government's policy to encourage the expansion of the private rented sector. To tie extra categories of people into succession rights could give rise to concern on the part of landlords about how easily they could get their property back when required.

913
We are not convinced of the need to extend these rights to the private sector in the way the amendment suggests. I am quite happy to have a conversation with the noble Earl about the matter, preferably at a more civilised time of day. However, I am sure that he will understand that that is our position at the moment.
Earl Russell: I take the Minister's point about a more civilised time of day. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 201 agreed to.
Clause 202 [Minor definitions: general]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 114, line 24, at end insert—
(""enactment" includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 120. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 202, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 203 [Extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 276ZA to 276ZAB not moved.]
Clause 203 agreed to.
Clause 204 [Commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 276A and 276B not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 115, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment and to Amendment No. 278 with Amendments Nos. 251 and 254A respectively. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 115, line 25, at end insert—
("section 87 (provision of general legal advice about residential tenancies),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 204, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments. The Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past midnight.