Housing Bill

HL Deb 25 June 1996 vol 573 cc767-88

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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, 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.