Lords Sitting of 26 March 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 St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Privatisation: Trade Union Rights
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the trade union rights and conditions of employment of employees in the privatised utilities are being respected by their new employers.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, privatised utilities are subject to the same statutory obligations towards their employees as other companies in the private sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the former Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Parkinson, gave guarantees on privatisation that existing conditions would be honoured. Is that no longer the case? Is the Minister aware of attempts in the north west by the newly joined facility of North West Water and North West Electricity to impose individual contracts on members? Does the noble Baroness understand that such a policy cuts across the basic trade union principle of collective bargaining? If collective bargaining by trade unions is not allowed or is done away with, the whole purpose of the trade union movement would go, and trade unions would be no more than Christmas clubs. Will the noble Baroness do something about the issue?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I well understand the purpose of the noble Lord's Question. The company to which he refers, United Utilities, was formed on 1st January of this year following the takeover of NORWEB, the electricity company, by North West Water. United Utilities plan to operate an internal facility called Vertex. The purpose is to provide facilities common to both companies, for example, metering and billing. The truth is that the vast majority of North West Water's employees who are being transferred to Vertex are already on individual contracts not covered by collective bargaining. On the other hand, the majority of the transferees from NORWEB—I believe that they must be the people to whom the noble Lord refers—are covered by collective bargaining.
It makes sense that NORWEB transferees are offered individual contracts because the new parent company wants to have a common approach to pay and conditions for the employees of Vertex. Despite what the noble Lord says, my understanding is that they were offered four different alternatives and all but a handful have accepted one or other of the options.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as regards privatised industries,
1568
the employee buy-outs, in particular in coal and the National Freight Corporation, have been of great advantage to the employees of those previously nationalised industries? Does she further agree that the privatisation policy of this Government has resulted in a turn-round from a subsidy to nationalised industries of £50 million per week to a profit to the Exchequer of £55 million per week?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree totally with what my noble friend says. Privatisation has been one of the greatest successes. Prices are down; there are better standards of service; investment is up; productivity is up; and there is more consumer choice and competition than ever before. I believe that we should be proud of that success.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister makes the position sound cosy. Will she bear in mind that there will be more takeovers in these utilities and more refusals of trade union recognition which will lead to bad industrial relations? Will she also bear in mind that strong trade unions are vital to democracy? In those countries where trade union rights have been emasculated or destroyed, they have totalitarian regimes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite is worried about nothing, if he does not mind my saying so. There are already about 1 million trade union members whose unions do not bargain with their employers. There are benefits to the consumer of lower prices. For example, electricity prices in domestic terms are 7 per cent. down and in industrial terms 11 per cent. down. Industrial gas prices are 50 per cent. down in real terms; domestic gas prices are around 24 per cent. down. Dealing with just one of the better standards of service, the number of domestic electricity customers disconnected for debt since 1990 is down by 99 per cent. That is what happens when we have privatised utilities.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, to return to the original Question, I should declare an interest as someone who sat as a member of an industrial tribunal for 20 years. Is it not a fact that any employee is now protected in his employment by the law? Anxiety has been expressed about those transferring. Under the transfer of undertakings provisions, are not those people equally protected and able to bring a case if they are receiving unjust treatment? Further, are not the trade unions specially provided for in employment legislation?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the answer is yes. The same enforcement procedures of employment law apply to privatised companies as to all other companies in the private sector, including going to the civil courts and industrial tribunals.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have been in communication with her noble and learned friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry concerning a trade union representative? Following privatisation under the

1569
Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995, he was made redundant in circumstances which clearly indicate that he is being discriminated against on grounds of his trade union activity. The individual concerned is a Dr. Wickett who has had a long and distinguished career with the Atomic Energy Authority. There seems no reason for his redundancy apart from the fact that he was a trade union representative with distinguished service. Is the Minister aware of his case?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am certainly not aware of the case which the noble Baroness has just mentioned. Obviously, she would not expect me to comment on a case for which I do not have the facts. However, the same enforcement procedures of ordinary employment law apply to the privatised utilities. If the gentleman concerned has been unfairly dismissed, he has the right to go to an industrial tribunal. It is against the law to discriminate because someone is a member of a trade union or not a member of a trade union. Such people have all the opportunities to go to civil law or industrial tribunals if they wish.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister made a cosy reply to my supplementary question. However, is she aware that 3,500 employees in the electricity section of the company whom the Minister described as highly satisfied voted only in the past few days to withdraw services for emergency repairs? Does the Minister understand the chaos that will be caused for old and vulnerable people if services are withdrawn? Does that not indicate that the position is not as acceptable as the Minister is trying to make out from the nonsense she has been fed with?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the last thing I have been fed with is nonsense, I must tell the noble Lord. I have been fed with the facts. If he thought my reply cosy, it was cosy because the facts are cosy. The bottom line is that there were four alternatives and all but a handful accepted them. The noble Lord opposite referred to the possibility of a strike.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I heard it clearly; yes, indeed, he did say so. The company at the centre of all this is Vertex. That company provides services such as billing and metering, as I mentioned. Let us be absolutely honest. Any disruption to the services, although extremely unwelcome, would not deprive consumers of access to electricity and water supplies. I do not believe it is appropriate to suggest that it would.

Hoax Health Warnings
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will discourage hoax health warnings on packets of foodstuffs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. We are not aware that they represent a problem in practice.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Has he seen spoof notices, for example, on packets of crisps in large lettering:
"Warning, not to be eaten in confined spaces"?
The implication, supposed to be humorous, is apparently that the crisps pop and crackle prodigiously. Are parents right to be apprehensive that the warning might be serious and that there might be danger, for example, from fumes, especially when any required warnings are lost in the small print?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, our opinion is that such hoax health warnings tend to be self-limiting. If they are at all serious, customers will not buy the product, which rather negates the point of having such jokes on the packets anyway.
The more worrying area is health claims, which we take much more seriously. We are putting serious research into it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that advice from some quarters to take health warnings on foodstuffs with a pinch of salt is perhaps rather unfortunate phraseology? Will he agree that the present legal situation, which merely requires health claims on foodstuffs to be not misleading, is unsatisfactory? There should be a much stricter requirement to substantiate such claims.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I suspect that the answer may turn out to be "yes". However, we are reviewing the whole area in the course of the year and are examining all aspects and all possible improvements and changes. We expect to have drawn conclusions by the end of the year.
As the noble Lord may be aware, one particular brand of yoghurt is causing us concern. It has published claims that it reduces cholesterol because the ferment from which it is made is extracted from the bowels of 120 year-old Caucasian men. Those in the Ministry of Agriculture who are intrepid enough to have tried it report that it tastes as if it is made from extract from the bowels of 120 year-old Caucasian men. It occurs to us that if that health claim turns out to have foundation and there is profit to be made from the extract of old gentlemen, perhaps this House could have a brand name which is worth exploiting.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that consumers of food as a whole now need as much good advice as they ever did, and that supposed jokes concerning health warnings are confusing, besides being in very bad taste?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in general, consumers should be entitled to have wording on food packets which is not confusing, which is unambiguous and which tells them what they want to know about what they are about to eat.

Volatile Organic Compounds
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the deadlines for phasing out emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been postponed.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, our international obligation, under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's Protocol, is not to phase out VOC emissions, but to reduce them by 1999 by 30 per cent. over the levels which obtained in 1988.
The postponement of deadlines for certain sectors, which was announced last June, was to avoid industry incurring what might have proved to be unnecessary expenditure in advance of a review of the relevant statutory guidance. We remain on target to meet the obligation due in 1999.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that some volatile organic compounds lead to ozone levels which cause asthma and difficulties for other sufferers as well? In addition, is he aware that the delay to which he refers could have serious consequences for our developing environmental technology industry, which is already experiencing difficulties because of fierce competition from other countries where such industries have been in operation for very much longer? Who was consulted before these arrangements were made? Did the Minister consult environmental agencies and the industry; or was it just pressure from the coating industry that caused it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Volatile organic compounds can affect asthma, etc. However, there are some 200 compounds. They are all very different, and have different effects, some of which are even carcinogenic.
The noble Baroness said that environmental technology businesses are concerned. I can understand that. There are two sides to this coin. One is the technology business that wants to sell its "stuff"; the other is the people who have to buy the "stuff" in order to make their emissions more suitable. We do not want to impose unnecessary expenditure on businesses. That is why, given that we are on target to meet the deadlines required by 1999, there has been a temporary remission of between eight months and, in some cases, 24 months in order that we should reach the standards.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in the light of that reply, will the Minister agree that the Government have once again sacrificed long-term gains for the environment and health of the nation in favour of short-term commercial advantages?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a most extraordinary question. We have not sacrificed long-term gains. As I just explained, we shall meet the international obligations by 1999. What we do not want to do is impose unnecessary costs on business. There is an approach
1572
termed BATNEEC—not to be confused with "beatnik", which is a gentleman with black hair. Under BATNEEC you have to use the best available technique you can in order to achieve the ends you require without involving excessive cost. That is the approach being examined. That is possibly why some relaxations were able to be made, which is in the interests of industry.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does that mean that the Government have decided to ignore the advice of the Environment Select Committee of the House of Commons? The committee stated:
"reducing VOCs is necessary, but it will not be painless … industries which use or produce solvents—including the coatings, printing and dry-cleaning industries—will face increased costs. In the Committee's view, the price is worth paying".
Have the Government decided to ignore that advice?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government never ignore the observations of a Select Committee. Indeed, the deadlines that were announced last June were included in the department's response to the report of the Environment Select Committee on volatile organic compounds published on 26th June. So we have not rejected it.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister agree that this Question has two elements, one short-term and one long-term? We are delighted that he is dealing with the short term. But he need not bother with the long term, because that will be taken care of by the incoming Labour government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have always reckoned the noble Lord to be one of those in this House who have the most fanciful imagination. If he really thinks that that will happen, I can only assure him that he had better watch out. He will be staying on that side of the House as long as he is here.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Earl acknowledged the health effects of VOCs. Have the Government costed the treatment of children and people with asthma, as against the cost to industry of preventing emissions?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. This issue goes far wider than simply the problem of asthma. It relates to the whole purification of air. We now have an air quality strategy. As I said, there are some 200 volatile organic compounds. Some even come from pine trees. As a nation, we are obliged to reduce the total national emissions of volatile organic compounds, which can come from a number of sources. Some are easier to control and reduce than others; and in relation to some sources the last 4 per cent. or so can be very expensive indeed. Therefore, we have tried to bring them all down, and that is what we shall do. While I understand the noble Countess's concern about asthma, it would not be an appropriate matter for specific research in relation to volatile organic compounds. Asthma is a matter for research in its own right.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl regard the cheapening of the process used to

1573
produce bone meal, by reducing the temperature at which bone meal was produced and by withdrawing the chemicals that were expensive, a good example of the Government saving money?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord sometimes has the capacity to ask totally irrelevant questions. Meat and bone meal have nothing to do with volatile organic compounds, since they are not volatile.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Earl gave an example of government policy to help industry. I am merely repeating what he said and asking him whether that was a good example.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I still think it is irrelevant.

The Acting Profession: Unemployment Benefit
2.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering fully the possible effects on the acting profession should they decide to alter the basis whereby unemployed actors can claim unemployment benefit.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, following two cases before the special commissioners in 1993, the Inland Revenue treats the majority of actors as self-employed for tax purposes. We have been considering this and have consulted widely on the implications of aligning the treatment of actors for national insurance purposes. We will be making an announcement as soon as possible.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he agree that our acting profession is held in the highest regard throughout the world? Will he further agree that, in order to achieve that high regard, it has been necessary to have a large pool of actors—and young actors—which can be achieved only through the (I agree) anomalous situation whereby self-employed actors pay a higher rate of national insurance contribution in return for the right to claim a non-means tested benefit, namely, unemployment benefit? If the provision were in any way removed, would there not be fewer young actors in particular? They lead a very hard-working life and are often extremely poor. Although obviously they have talent, otherwise they would not be thought of in the first place, they need experience. Above all, they need availability. Would not that availability be greatly affected?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, despite the successes last evening on the other side of the Atlantic by the British film and acting industry and various actors and actresses, one has to look at the whole question of the self-employed and how they are treated, both by the Inland Revenue and by the national
1574
insurance contributions system. There is little doubt that the principle of ensuring that people are treated in the same way when it comes to taxation and national insurance is important. That is why we are having to look carefully at whether this particular small group should be given an exemption from what I believe is the correct principle of uniformity of treatment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that at a meeting in June 1994 between officials from the Department of Social Security, the British Actors' Equity Association and the Theatres National Committee, which represents managers, it was agreed at a discussion on national insurance class 1 contributions that no further action would be taken by the Government until a further discussion had taken place between those officials and the Equity-TNC working party? Can the Minister assure the House that that meeting will take place—it has not happened to date—before any final decision is taken?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister responsible for these matters, Mr. Oliver Heald, has just written to the General Secretary of the British Actors' Equity Association, inviting him to come and meet him to discuss the subject. Indeed, we have had wide-ranging consultations. The problem has arisen because two actors took their case to the commissioners, with the backing of Equity, and won it; namely, that they ought to be considered as self-employed because of the tax advantages. They should have realised at the time that other self-employed people did not have the additional advantage of being treated as employed people when it came to paying national insurance contributions. We have to recall that uniformity of treatment is an important principle with regard to the Revenue and the Contributions Agency.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the principle has been tested and tried over the years? From time to time the Inland Revenue has taken the view that actors should be on pay-as-you-earn and it has been decided against them. Is not the reason that from some points of view the contract of the actors is a contract of employment; but from other points of view it is a contract for services? It is not a privileged position but it is a special position. I am sure that when the matter is looked into, the noble Lord in discussion with Equity will come to the conclusion that there is very good reason for maintaining the situation because of the precarious conditions in the acting profession.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one of the difficulties is that many other people are self-employed, including people in the arts and, for example, subcontractors in the building industry. They are considered to be self-employed and are not given the option of being considered as self-employed from the Revenue's point of view and at the same time allowed to pay national insurance class 1 contributions, which permits them to claim unemployment benefit. One has to be very careful before making exceptions and getting away from the principle of the Revenue and the

1575
Contributions Agency treating people on the same basis. That is why we are in serious consultation on this issue with those in the acting profession.
As I said, the situation has been brought about as a result of two actors taking their case to the commissioners, when they were considered to be pay-as-you-earn employees and therefore eligible for national insurance class 1 contributions and eligible for unemployment benefit. They claimed that they were self-employed and won. I am afraid that what follows from that is that self-employed national insurance stamps must be paid. We have to ask ourselves whether it is correct to continue with that uniform policy or whether we should breach it in this particularly narrow case.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is it not a fact that at any given moment in time something like one in four of all Equity members are unemployed in excess of a year? A very high proportion of them at the outside have the occasional walk-on part, with no possibility of making a living wage. In those circumstances, would not most people consider the ideal solution to be that they should look for a different profession and not that they should be subsidised by the state?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that I can agree or disagree with the noble Lord's figure of one in four. At the latest count 14,000 unemployed people gave their occupation as actors, entertainers, stage managers, producers and directors. In fact only about 3,000 of them were eligible for unemployment benefit. The rest were on income support and the like. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is quite correct. Those of us who have had a previous career with constituents will know that many people who are starting off in a self-employed career would very much like to have the option of being considered class 1 national insurance contributors and getting unemployment benefit.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, does the Minister agree that there is a case for listening very seriously to what those Members of your Lordships' House who have experience of the acting profession had to say this afternoon about the position of young actors? As has been said, many of them can expect to see a great deal of unemployment in the early years of their career. Will the Minister accept that there is no reason why such actors should not be allowed to continue to pay class 1 contributions?—otherwise, they have to be supported through means-tested benefits and the saving to the taxpayer cannot be all that much.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the case had not been brought and they had continued to be considered as employed people—as indeed some of them are because of the kind of contracts that they have and they are paying PAYE and class 1 contributions—there would be no argument about the matter. It is because the profession decided that it wished to have the tax advantages of the self-employed that the problem has arisen for it and for the Government. The noble
1576
Baroness cannot just brush aside the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about other young people starting off on a self-employed career in any other business, where they too may have periods of unemployment and might like the option of having, so to speak, an each-way bet.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, whatever the unemployment rate in the acting profession, do the Government have any plans to promote the film industry, which gives much needed extra jobs to the acting profession?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at the Order Paper for Thursday, when I believe that my noble friend Lord Inglewood is to answer a Question on that issue.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering the Question. I agree with an enormous amount of what he said and in particular about the case of the two actors who went to the special commissioners. Having been a theatrical agent in a former existence, may I tell the noble Lord that actors do not always do what is best for themselves? That, obviously, is one of the examples. Will the noble Lord confirm that he will not let that fact colour the decisions of his department?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not let even the fact that the noble Lord was once a theatrical agent colour the decisions of my department. It is a difficult problem and we understand the argument of the acting profession. Equally, we are very sure that having a uniform set of rules between the Revenue and the Contributions Agency is an important principle. As so often in government, we shall have to arrive at a decision between two conflicting principles.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
INTRODUCTORY: GRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS
(" . The purposes of this Part are to enable a local housing authority to operate a scheme for grant aid for the renewal of private sector housing in its area in such a way that it can—

(a) assess the number of private homes which are unfit for human habitation or in serious disrepair;

1577

(b) estimate the number of homes which are owned or rented by people who are in receipt of income support, family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit or disability working allowance;

(c) set priorities for action under this Part in accordance with a local private house renewal strategy;

(d) bring about an improvement in the condition of private housing in the area; and

(e) encourage the promotion and facilitation of sound maintenance of private sector housing by private interests including lenders, insurers and builders.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. As the Committee will have perceived, this is a purpose clause. Purpose clauses are not unknown in legislation. Indeed they are frequently adopted in legislation. The purpose is to define what Part I is about.
I shall not make another Second Reading speech. In my Second Reading speech I made all the points about the general situation in private housing which I would otherwise have made in introducing the amendment.
Perhaps I may direct the Committee to the context of the amendment. It is designed to "enable" local housing authorities. That is the thrust of my new clause. What is a local housing authority to do if so enabled? First, it must,
"assess the number of private homes which are unfit for human habitation or in serious disrepair".
Many local authorities currently do that but some do not. On the whole, the record of local authorities is fairly good. Secondly, a local authority should be enabled by this part, under paragraph (b) to,
"estimate the number of homes which are owned or rented by people who are in receipt of [various benefits]".
Under paragraph (c) a local housing authority should,
"set priorities for action under this Part in accordance with a local private house renewal strategy".
As the Committee will be aware, many local authorities already have such a strategy. The purpose of this part is to reinforce the ability of a local authority to determine such a strategy and to follow it through. If I may add a gloss to that, in subsequent amendments we will be urging that local authorities should have much greater discretion than they have at the moment to follow their own strategies.
Having determined what the local housing authority wishes to do under this provision—given that the Government have gone away from mandatory grants to discretionary grants—the local housing authority should be able to set priorities and follow them. Paragraph (d) says that the general purpose of this provision is to,
"bring about an improvement in the condition of private housing in the area".
That is simple in terms but complicated in practice. Nevertheless, it is something that we believe to be right. Paragraph (e) has regard to the,
"sound maintenance of private sector housing by private interests including lenders, insurers and builders".
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to go back to the first principles of what renovation grants are about; that is, to recall the aims of grant activity in private
1578
housing. Every Member of the Committee will recognise that what is needed is a system that will allow for the accurate assessment of needs in each local area; the extent to which such repairs may be undertaken privately and not with public assistance; the extent, following from that, of the need for financial assistance from local authorities with repairs, and the setting of priorities for the most urgent and most effective action.
I hope Members of the Committee on all sides will agree that the net result of this part should lead to an overall improvement in the condition of private housing. Unless this purpose clause is inserted at the beginning of Part I, I do not believe that our debates will be satisfactorily set within a framework which is the right framework for the part. I shall not go back to Second Reading, but the Government would be wise to accept this purpose clause—I emphasise again that it is only an enabling provision—in order to put Part I of the Bill into a proper framework. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: When I read the wording of Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands, which starts "grants are available", it seemed to me that the proposal of a purpose clause was required. "Grants are available" is a bland and uncontentious statement. Grants will only be available and should only be available within the context of a proper strategy for dealing with and preserving our housing stock.
Amendment No. 1 is an attempt to set, if not a strategy, at any rate a series of tactics and is very much within the Government's framework as set out in the housing White Paper. That points to support of the private sector. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I shall try to resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech. The amendment promotes the private sector for ownership and for renting. We know that it makes sense to conserve an asset in which one has invested; the nation's housing stock must be one of the biggest of those assets.
My other reason for supporting the amendment is that it sets out clearly and helpfully the role of local authorities. They are best placed to assess local housing needs and opportunities. It puts the purpose of the Bill into the context of local authority strategies and capital programmes. The amendment is not taking us down a road which is in any way in contradiction to the Bill as proposed by the Government; but it is an appropriate introduction to the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made an admirably brief speech, on which I congratulate him. I am paying a compliment to the noble Lord and do not know why he should look so worried. I withdraw the compliment, perhaps that will make him less worried.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that this was a purpose clause, which is not unknown in legislation. That is perfectly true. But such clauses are uncommon because they run the risk of interfering with the legal clarity of the main provisions of the Bill. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the clause enables local authorities to do various things. They can assess; they can estimate; they can set priorities; they can bring about improvement.

1579
The noble Lord is right that that is what the clause enables local authorities to do. But it only enables them; it does not instruct them. All those things which the noble Lord wishes to enable local authorities to do, can already be done. The inclusion of this clause, therefore, would not help. We would be putting into the Bill a clause enabling local authorities to do what they are already enabled to do.
As it is drafted the purposes of Part I of the Bill are quite clear. We are seeking to provide local authorities with the tools that they need to meet the objectives of their private sector renewal strategies. But it must be for local authorities themselves to decide how to use those tools. Local authorities already have a duty under Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 to make periodic inspections of the private sector stock within its area. On the basis of advice from my department this is often supplemented by a local house condition survey to help the local authority to identify the local problems. That information is used to enable it to set priorities for action and to devise what it reckons is the best thing to do with the aim of improving the condition of private housing in its area. It is clear from the housing investment programme strategies submitted annually by local authorities to the department that authorities are at present using the legislation for the kind of purposes the noble Lord has in mind in his amendment.
My fear is that if the Committee were to accept the amendment, which I hope it will not, it would be putting into the Bill a new clause which would enable local authorities to do what they are already enabled to do. However, the mere fact of including the new clause might muddy the waters of what they are technically and legally allowed to do. The purpose of the Bill is to put clearly what the law is. The new clause merely gives an impression of what people might be able to do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I did not wish to be disrespectful to the noble Earl when he complimented me on a short speech. I do not think that I have been on many Committees with the noble Earl. This is probably the first one. But my view about Committee procedure is that I should speak from the Opposition Front Bench to the amendment without making a long speech if I can avoid it. Members of the Committee opposite will recognise that that has been my practice in the past and will continue to be my practice in the future. It is not a matter of making compliments or not making compliments. It is a matter of getting on with the business of the Committee as best we may.
Earl Ferrers: If I have wounded the noble Lord by what was meant to be a pleasant interjection, I withdraw it. I am sorry that I have hurt him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not in the least wounded. I just wish the noble Earl would understand what Committee proceedings are about. Committee proceedings are about speaking to specific amendments and not making Second Reading speeches or long speeches. Committee proceedings are about making the point concisely and clearly, which I hope I did.
1580
The noble Earl says that the new clause would not add anything to the Bill. I disagree. What is on the face of the Bill sets the tone for the whole of the Bill—in this case the whole of the part which we are discussing. I am aware that local authorities may be enabled at the moment to do this, that and thus. What I am urging on the Government and on the Committee is that there should be a clause at the start of Part I which makes it perfectly clear to anyone who is reading Part I what it is about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is not about changing the provisions of the Bill and it is not about changing previous legislation. It is about stating what is the purpose of Part I.
The noble Earl invited me to expand on my reasons. The Government have given up any systematic attempt to address the problem of private housing disrepair. They have shrugged off responsibility for ensuring that private housing is kept in good condition, possibly preparing the way for future cuts in expenditure. The Bill as drafted will bring no new money, no new resources, no new homes and indeed no new ideas. What we are trying to say is simply that, given the Bill has received its Second Reading, we should put in at the beginning of Part I a clause which says, "This is what local housing authorities are meant to do". It is not a wrecking provision. I hope very much that in the light of what I have said the noble Earl will be able to say that he has no difficulty with the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may encourage him not to accept the amendment. I said at Second Reading that I welcomed the fact that the Bill gives local authorities increased flexibility. This proposed purpose clause at the beginning of Part I would take away that flexibility and put some different but mandatory conditions on local authorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: What mandatory conditions does the new clause propose?
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord wants me to spell out whether they are mandatory. My interpretation of this purpose clause is that it tries to tie the hands of local authorities, whether by mandatory conditions or not, whereas the Bill seeks to provide the flexibility which I welcomed when the measure came before the House for its Second Reading.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Viscount explain in what sense and in what particular the new clause would be mandatory on local authorities? If he cannot explain that, I cannot accept his speech.
Viscount Ullswater: It is for the Committee rather than the noble Lord to decide whether to accept my speech. I was trying to indicate to my noble friend that I did not want him to accept the amendment because I see it as tying the hands of local authorities

1581
or making them act in a way they should not, rather than giving the flexibility which I believe the Bill gives.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to pursue the noble Viscount but I wish him to be more precise. In what manner does the new clause require local authorities to pursue certain actions which the Bill does not invite them to pursue?
Viscount Ullswater: I must leave that to the judgment of the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister responds perhaps I may make a comment. Far from being restricted, local authorities need to have authority to undertake any action as their powers are limited by statute. This amendment would explain to local authorities the context for their operation of the Bill. The suggestion that local authorities should have more discretion than the amendment might allow seems odd in the context of a Bill which I read as the Government telling local authorities in detailed terms what they may and may not do and preserving the discretion to themselves, given the number of regulation-making powers included in it.
I take the point made by the Minister about the potential difficulty of a purpose clause affecting the interpretation of later provisions of the Bill. That point troubled me very much when a purpose clause was proposed to the Family Law Bill which your Lordships recently considered. I was persuaded by the argument of a number of eminent lawyers, not least the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that one should not be too concerned about that. I recognise that that was a different Bill and that the purpose was appropriate to that Bill. However, your Lordships have recently accepted a purpose clause as setting the scene for a Bill. In that sense I see this as no different.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: The purpose of that Bill was very different from the purpose of this one. The merit of the other purpose clause was that it declared the intentions of the Act, as it will be, in a way which made it possible for the courts to decide matters which were in doubt, according to the general intention of the Bill. If that cannot be adequately achieved in the Long Title of the Bill, then it is a legitimate purpose. But, as I see it, the amendment before us, as drafted, is useful for interpretation in only one area. The first three paragraphs suggest ways in which a local authority may carry out the functions which it is enabled to carry out by legislation, as does the final paragraph. The only paragraph which appears to have any force is (d) which states, if it is taken in context, that,
"The purposes of this Part are to enable a local housing authority to operate a scheme for grant aid for the renewal of private sector housing in its area in such a way that it can—
(d) bring about an improvement in the condition of private housing in the area".
1582
In the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, introducing this amendment which was of suitable length, I thought I caught an overtone that his real anxiety was that the funds released to support this legislation might be used merely to maintain housing in an unsatisfactory condition. I may have misunderstood him, but even this element of the amendment is superfluous because it is not possible to see how money might be granted under the terms set out in the Bill and be spent on buildings without them being improved: they could not remain in their existing condition. Therefore, this amendment would merely lengthen the Bill without adding any merit at all.
Lord Monkswell: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it is recognised that one of the problems, if I may put it like that, of home improvement or renovation work is the lack, or the reduction over time and a projected reduction, of central government funds which have been available, and which are going to be available, for that activity. While we may be concerned about that, there is not a great deal that we can do in terms of amending the Bill.
It is useful to remember that over the years local authorities in various parts of the country have exhibited amazing ingenuity in developing and helping the people living in their areas to gain improvements in their circumstances. The one particular paragraph of this amendment which lends itself particularly to my support is paragraph (e), which states that the local authorities are enabled to,
"encourage the promotion and facilitation of sound maintenance",
standards in the private sector.
One of the results that one might hope will emerge from the discretion that local authorities will be granted by this Bill is the flowering of ingenious ways of promoting and supporting the development of sound practices as regards encouraging private investment in the private housing stock, without necessarily the expenditure of large amounts of public money. That would achieve the aims of this Bill which, I believe, everyone must agree are effectively set out in paragraph (d); namely, to:
"bring about an improvement in the condition of private housing in the area".
Lord Ezra: I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will make it clear whether his objection to this amendment is to the wording of the purpose clause or whether it is to purpose clauses as such. If it is the latter I shall be very disturbed because I believe that there is now a major trend towards trying to simplify legislation. In fact, there is to be a debate tomorrow to be introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on simplifying tax legislation, and goodness knows, that is required. I believe that we should be aiming to simplify all legislation that comes through this House. A purpose clause for a part as important and complex as this seems to be highly desirable. Therefore, if the noble Earl does not agree with the wording of this purpose clause, will he bring forward at a later stage a purpose clause of his own?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that purpose clauses have been put in legislation before. She referred to the Family Law Bill, as I knew she

1583
or somebody else would. As my noble friend Lord Elton said, there was good reason for that particular clause being put into that Bill, which is of a very different nature from this Bill.
One of the dangers of putting in this clause is that it will, or may, curtail and limit the powers which the authorities have under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked whether I objected to purpose clauses as such or merely to the wording. I object to the wording of this purpose clause and to purpose clauses in this Bill. I was always taught that legislation ought to be as concise as possible. Most noble Lords now agree that legislation is becoming longer and longer. One is obliged to set the law. If we include a purpose clause, that confuses the position regarding what is actually the law as set out in the main part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that all the amendment does is to tell local authorities what they are meant to do. With great respect to the noble Lord, it does not say that and it does not tell them what they are meant to do. It enables local authorities to do certain things, but they are already able to do those things which his amendment enables the local authorities to do: they have the powers. There is no point in inserting an amendment which gives local authorities powers which they already have. That is why it would be wrong to include this amendment.
The amendment would also tend to make people think that this proposed clause would be what the whole Bill was about, and that could well limit the very considerable breadth of powers which are already contained in the Bill. Throughout the Bill it is stated that the Secretary of State "shall" or "may", or the local authorities "shall" or "may". There are already very considerable powers. It would be wrong to include an amendment such as this, which does not add to those powers but which enables local authorities to do things which they can do already.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not believe that under the Bill, as proposed, local planning authorities can meet paragraph (d) of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quite rightly pointed out. That was the whole burden of my Second Reading speech. As I understand it, the Government believe that this Bill enables local authorities to do something, but, as I understand it, that action cannot be undertaken under the Bill, as drafted, compared with the situation proposed in the amendment.
If that is the Government's intention I am perfectly happy to strike out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of our amendment and to put in paragraphs (d) and (e) because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, quite rightly pointed out, paragraph (d) is the crux of the matter; namely, does the Bill enable local authorities to do what, until now, they have been doing on a mandatory basis and, as proposed in paragraph (e), encourage private investors? If the noble Earl objects to those two principles then I take a very different view of the Bill from that which I had before we started.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may be able to help the noble Lord out of his difficulty. It is not that I do not like what he is saying. Paragraph (d) states that the purpose of that
1584
part of the Bill is to enable local housing authorities to "bring about an improvement". They already have a duty under Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 to make inspections of the private sector stock within their own areas. That information is used by them to set their priorities for action and to devise what their strategies shall be, with the basic aim of improving the conditions in the private sector. So they have those powers, and they do that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Up to now it has been mandatory and not discretionary that they should do that. This part of the Bill introduces a discretionary grant system. Up until now it has been mandatory. I agree with the Minister that the idea of enabling local housing authorities to bring about an improvement in the condition of private housing in the area up until now has been mandatory. They have been required to do that. It has all been okay, but now we have a discretionary system. All I am doing in my amendment, which is supported by my noble friend and other Members of the Committee, is saying that that is something which is desirable, and which local authorities should be able to do under the Bill. It paves the way for subsequent amendments.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord a little more. It is true that previously the grant system was mandatory, but now it will be discretionary. That does not mean that Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 does not apply. Of course local authorities have the right and duty to look at their housing, and to take account of it. What is discretionary is where they then place the money. Do they give it to that area or to some other area? That is the discretion part, not the fact that they should not take account of the housing stock in their area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It has been an interesting debate which has set the tone for the Committee's proceedings. I find the Minister's argument not wholly convincing. Nevertheless, we shall have a look at what has been said. I do not wish at this point to divide the Committee, but I reserve the position that at a later stage we may wish to put in a purpose clause which may be differently drafted, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the Minister said. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that a purpose clause at the beginning of this part could well help local authorities, the public, and the courts to understand what Part I is meant to achieve. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Grants for improvements and repairs, &c.]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert—
("Subject to section (Disabled adaptations to dwellings) below").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 267. Before I do so, I have been asked to let the Committee know that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, tenders her apologies for not being able to be present. Unfortunately, her noble kinsman, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is not

1585
well. I am sure that the Committee will join me in hoping to see them both back in their places as soon as possible.
Amendment No. 2 is purely a paving amendment to Amendment No. 5, and Amendment No. 267 is consequential upon Amendment No. 5. Disabled facilities grants are available to give financial assistance to disabled people for adaptations to their homes to enable them to live independently. A quarter of all households have a disabled member. There are 6.2 million people who are registered disabled, 4 million of whom have a mobility problem, according to the OPCS survey on disability in 1988. Research in 1994 by the Suffolk Coastal and Mid-Suffolk Disability Housing Research Group into the hidden housing needs of those who may not be registered as disabled found that nearly half of the people interviewed had difficulty with or could not use their front door, and half said that they were unable to use their bathroom facilities safely and independently.
As the population ages, the number of disabled people living in the community is likely to increase substantially. Ensuring that housing is made accessible to a disabled occupant will not just greatly improve the quality of life of older and disabled people; it is likely to reduce state funding in other areas of government policy. People who are able to manage adequately in their own homes, due to suitable adaptations, are less likely to require additional care in their own homes from local social services. They are also more likely to be able to remain in their own homes, thus meeting their expressed aspirations, and saving the expense of costly residential care.
Only a minority of the population is aged between 18 and 40, fit and able-bodied. Yet most housing development seems to be designed for that minority group. As a result, there is a considerable need for adaptations to existing properties to enable people with disabilities to manage within their own homes. The express purpose of the Government's care-in-the-community policy is to enable people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible.
Disabled facilities grants are a major plank in that policy. At present provision for adaptations to private housing is made on an ad hoc basis. Disabled facilities grants are allocated when and if people apply for them. Many people are unaware of their existence. Others may not apply due to the real or perceived complexity of the system, or of delays. An annual report, as I propose in the amendment, would enable the housing needs of older and disabled people to be addressed systematically. It should address the need for adaptations to properties in the private, council, and housing association sectors. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I warmly support the arguments used by the noble Lord and the amendments that he proposes. People, as they become older and begin to suffer from a lack of mobility, have in my experience one strong wish, which is to stay in their own homes for as long as
1586
possible. It is government policy, at least theoretically, that people should be encouraged to do that. Here we have an amendment which sets that out clearly. It would be invaluable if, as it says in Amendment No. 5, the Secretary of State were to publish such a detailed report of adaptations to dwellings in the manner suggested. That would be informative for us all, and it would help publicise to people who are becoming aware of their decreasing mobility that it might be possible for them to obtain help in having their homes adapted so that they can go on living there longer. That is what people wish, and the amendment sets out that proposition clearly.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I, too, support the amendment so clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I wonder whether we have to refer to "disabled adaptations". I wonder whether we can find a happier form of words than that. The amendment would be useful as there is an increasingly ageing population, and more people survive accidents and live successfully with illness and disease. The number of disabled people living in the community is also likely to increase substantially. We need to address the problem in a planned manner and make the best use of resources.
As the White Paper Caring for People noted, housing is a vital part of community care and is often the key to independent living. I know from personal experience, and from other disabled people, that that is so. My noble friend Lady Masham is a prime example of that. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in sending my best wishes to her noble kinsman, hoping that he makes a full and swift recovery. It is well known that if disabled people remain at home and live independently, they stay healthier and happier, and have a more positive approach to life. They have therefore less recourse to help from the state; for example, hospital treatment. I hope that the Minister will find value in this amendment.
Lord Rix: I support the amendment. In so doing, I indulge in a small bout of special pleading to draw attention to the particular problems of reinforcing, or otherwise rendering safe, a room for use by people with disabilities. For a small minority of people with learning disabilities, major behavioural problems that stem from frustrated communication, additional mental health problems, or pain that cannot be located or relieved, mean that an ordinary room will not meet their needs. Their special room has to be rendered safe for them and safe from them. They will shatter normal glass, break normal doors, demolish normal fittings and, in the process, can seriously injure themselves. Parents cannot monitor them 24 hours a day and therefore have to create within their house a place which is safe.
If we expect parents to cater for people with these very special problems we can at least ensure that the costs of creating a secure room within a house do not fall on their shoulders along with the emotional and physical costs of caring which do. I believe that such

1587
parents, small in number though they may be, should be included in any national estimate of the number of houses that require disabled adaptations.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the cross-party support for government policy and the paeons of praise for care in the community, disabled facilities grants and other efforts that the Government have made. Our proposals for change to the disabled facilities grant provisions are a clear demonstration of our commitment to ensure that disabled people obtain help for essential adaptations when they need it.
My noble friend's first two amendments provide that the provisions of Chapter I relating to the availability of grants shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on a national basis that covers certain matters dealing with home adaptations for disabled people, as set out in Amendment No. 5. The report is required to be updated annually. It is important to have full information about the adaptation needs of disabled people for the purposes of allocating the available resources. However, we already have the information we need for that purpose. The public sector stock indicator, as part of the annual housing investment programme process, provides an invaluable means of assessing the needs of local authorities to incur expenditure on disabled facilities grant.
Furthermore, the 1996 English house condition survey, which is carried out every five years, will provide useful information on homes that need adaptations. Above all, we have experience of giving out the grants themselves which tells us what the demand is. I am not at all convinced by the protestations of my noble friend Lord Swinfen that disabled people have difficulty in finding out what is available. All the efforts of the Government and the great organisations, with which my noble friend and others in the Committee are associated, are directed to making sure that disabled people understand exactly what is available to them. We publish information in an easily accessible format. I do not believe that there is a widespread problem about people not knowing what is available to them.
My noble friend described the effect of Amendment No. 267 as consequential. It is not inconsequential. It is extremely inconvenient to have to wait to bring Part I into force until a report which is very time-consuming and difficult to research has been produced. We see no need for it. We have a system that will run effectively without such a report. Even if such a report is required, we see no reason whatever to delay proceedings until it is produced. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported my amendment. I also thank my noble friend for his reply. My noble friend says that all of the information is published. I am not sure that it is published in a comprehensive form so that all of the information required can be found in one place. It probably requires a good deal of research. If all of it can be published in one place I am sure that it will be of great assistance to grant-making bodies as well as disabled people and their families who seek grants. I shall read what my noble
1588
friend said and take careful note of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
("The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that grants under this Part and Part IV are available through home improvement agency services in every local authority area.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee may be aware that the organisations referred to in the amendments as home improvement agency services are more usually called care and repair or staying put. Those organisations help older people, those with disabilities, or those who live in low-income accommodation, to adapt homes which are unsuitable or unfit. They assist vulnerable and disadvantaged people. For many people, applying for the grants we have in mind is a difficult exercise. The process is complex. Those Members of the Committee who have read the proposals will understand that matters will become more complex as and when the Bill receives Royal Assent. The service that is offered helps people through the entire process. Agencies visit people in their homes, decide what work needs to be done, arrange finance, and organise and oversee the building work. Agency staff often refer the person concerned to other agencies for further support.
The agencies are not available in all local authority areas. Not all local authorities need to provide such agencies, nor is it right that every local authority should have its own agency. Nevertheless, there may be a case for setting up mobile agencies, or mobile staying put schemes as they are called, which take the service to the customer. Such agencies have been set up, for instance, in rural areas of Devon, Craven and north Cornwall. Currently, there are 200 such agencies in England, of which 125 receive financial support from the Department of the Environment. Other funding comes from housing authorities, charitable trusts, housing associations and so on. The Department of the Environment's own research in 1994 showed a very high level of satisfaction on the part of recipients of these services, an ever-increasing amount of work being undertaken, and sound value for money.
Home improvement agencies constitute an essential part of the arrangements under the Bill. They are a low-cost, practical contribution to the problems of poor housing in the private sector. People need this type of advice when getting to grips with builders, local authorities or whoever it may be. The agencies provide not only a high quality service but a cost-effective one which targets those most in need. That is where our concern lies.
I do not go into all of the supporting arguments that I can adduce, because I do not wish to make long speeches about amendments. Nevertheless, I believe the amendment to be an important one. I hope that the noble Earl will understand the virtue of home improvement agencies and agree that such a service should be available to everyone who is covered by the Bill. I have no particular problem with whether that is provided within a local authority or by a mobile unit. However,

1589
if we are to move towards discretionary grants rather than mandatory grants, and given that the Bill is a complicated Bill requiring complicated procedures from those applying for grants, it is very important that proper, quality, independent advice should be given at low cost. I very much hope that the Government will bear that in mind. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment and do so by challenging Members of the Committee to consider whether, when they have had building work carried out, they would not have been grateful for the services of an agency which could have helped them through the complexities and the upheavals.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have spoken highly of home improvement agencies. I entirely agree that they have done a wonderful job of work. They are highly valued by the people who use them. The noble Lord was right to say that people need impartial and good advice about their homes. The home improvement agencies have helped enormously with the effective provision of housing and community care policies in the various areas in which they work.
We greatly value that work and are keen to see the services of those agencies become widely available. Our steady programme of grant-aiding the administrative costs of such agencies can be clearly seen. We started in 1991 by supporting 97 agencies in 100 local authority areas. For the coming year we have increased the funding by a further 15 per cent., which will bring the total of supported agencies to 142, covering 148 authorities.
The noble Lord said that the agencies should be available to all, in all places. However, I am not convinced that home improvement agencies should, as a matter of law, be required in all local authority areas. It is primarily the duty of local authorities to ensure that renovation grants and the other assistance provided in the Bill reach their targets. That is their job and their duty. Some, but not all, authorities choose to do that by setting up or supporting home improvement agencies. I think that that is good, but I do not think that it would be right to require them to do so, particularly if, and where, they may have developed other effective arrangements.
Furthermore, home improvement agencies are essentially part of the voluntary sector. I think that that is where they find their spike and enthusiasm. Many of them have been funded by, for instance, the Anchor Housing Association and other such bodies. They rely on very small numbers of dedicated staff who have the advantage of falling outside the machinery of local and central government. They are basically volunteers. If we make those organisations into statutory bodies, as would happen if the amendment were to be accepted, we would alter their character and might be in danger of making them just another office of the local authority. The work that they have done, and are doing, is enormously important. I should like to see them proliferate around
1590
the country, but it would be difficult to make that happen by law. That is why I hope that the noble Lord may agree that the voluntary approach is probably the best.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. There is very little between us. We all agree that the agencies play an important role—I would say that they play a vital role—in helping people to get the proper measure of grant to which they are entitled. They become more important as we move towards discretionary grants rather than mandatory grants.
I have no particular brief for saying that the agencies should be statutory in the sense that a local authority is statutory. They are clearly voluntary agencies. Of the 200 agencies in England, 125 receive about 30 per cent. of their core funding from the Department of the Environment. As often happens with voluntary organisations, that brings them half into the public sector in the sense that without such core funding they probably could not exist. That is the case with a number of voluntary organisations. Other funding comes from housing authorities, charitable trusts, housing associations and, increasingly, from health and social services. I recognise that the Government increased the funding of the agencies in the recent Budget. The Department of Health has also realised the community care potential of the agencies and is funding research into their benefits.
I hope that I would be the last person to recommend that we should place those agencies in the public sector by law. If the noble Earl understood my amendment in that way, I am afraid that the amendment must be badly drafted, because I did not mean that. I shall rethink the context and drafting of the amendment: what I meant to say was that in my view it would be wrong to introduce a discretionary grant system in the United Kingdom—in England and Wales or wherever—which did not allow the most vulnerable in our society the sort of benefits which are already available from the 200 agencies which already exist in England. In other words, anybody who feels that they need such advice should have access to that advice from somewhere. I do not know how that should be funded.
As I have said, there is not much difference between us and the Government, but perhaps the Minister could reassure me that at least throughout England and Wales there will be access to an agency such as Care and Repair, even if it is mobile. The Government should make sure that there is such access. That is the view of the national co-ordinating body for home improvement agencies, Care and Repair, which has,
"already proposed that there should be an agency in every local authority by the year 2000. They are also looking at the possibility of determining the ideal size of service with reference to a calculation based on each head of the target population, using the experience of the last ten years. A proper assessment of needs is required if the agency service is to prove effective and the tokenistic"—
I do not approve of that word, but I am quoting—
"provision of a home improvement agency that cannot possibly meet the local demand is to be avoided".

1591
I am pressing the noble Earl a little further to make sure that the Government take on board the view that I am expressing in this amendment, unsatisfactory though the drafting may be. Without such a network of agencies, the discretionary grants system will not be satisfactory for the most vulnerable people in our society. If the noble Earl will agree with me on that, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord said, there is not very much between us on this. I think that the work that these people do is remarkable and is of great benefit; so does the noble Lord. We want to see that work continue throughout the country; so does the noble Lord. I accept that his drafting may be wrong but it is difficult to see how the Government or anyone else can promote what is basically a voluntary body. Such bodies have to grow and to move out as a result of efforts made from within. It is difficult for governments to say, "We will plonk"—to use another bad word—"a voluntary agency in a certain area".
I shall consider the noble Lord's point, but my difficulty is in seeing how we can promote a voluntary agency which will expand in various directions. I believe that that must come from within. However, I shall certainly consider the matter and see whether there is any way in which we can do so. It would not be right to provide for that in statute because many complications would be created.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. One of the ways in which the Department of the Environment could encourage the growth of such voluntary bodies is by ensuring core funding. No doubt that is a matter which the Minister, in his expressions of good will, will be examining. Various estimates have been made of the necessary expenditure out of the public purse to encourage such voluntary agencies. I take no view on that but say simply that it is one of the ways in which the Government could, were they so inclined, encourage those and other voluntary organisations. Perhaps in some areas spontaneous growth is sufficient but it may not be so in other areas.
I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) No grant shall be payable under this Part until the Secretary of State has made an order under section (Report on Secretary of State's contributions to local authorities) below.").
The noble Lord said: I ask the Committee to note that Amendment No. 4 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 6, 111, 112 and 114. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that proper consideration of the level of resources necessary to secure the effective and practical operation of the grant system proposed in the Bill is achieved and to provide for proper accountability of decisions by making public the assumptions on which they are based.
In recent years there has been a progressive reduction in the amounts available for renovation grants. In the early 1980s the annual level of public investment in
1592
renovation grants was about £1.5 billion. By 1994–95 that had fallen to £0.5 billion. The number of grants has correspondingly fallen from a peak of 200,000 repair and intermediate grants in 1984 to fewer than 40,000 renovation grants provided by local authorities some 10 years later.
Understandably, therefore, there is concern that the removal of a statutory right to a renovation grant will further reduce the priority given to grant expenditure and lead to even larger reductions in investment. The current grant system, which is based on mandatory grants, has, as was revealed in the research carried out by the Government in 1993, highlighted the worst housing and the poorest households. At the same time, it was clear that a growing number of local authorities were finding it difficult to operate the system within the resources allocated. For that reason the mandatory system is intended to be replaced with a discretionary system.
In introducing the proposals on Second Reading, the Minister stated that that would enable local authorities to take a more strategic view of their responsibilities in this area. That is fine and highly desirable, but it will be difficult for them to do so if the amount of resources is to be continually eroded. For that reason, and because of that fear, the amendment proposes that the Government should indicate in broad terms their own assessment of the need for spending on private house renewals and the contribution that they intend to make to the main elements of the system. Without such a framework the effectiveness of discretionary grant will be undermined. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have a good deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 112 and 114 which stand in my name. Amendment No. 112 requires the Secretary of State to:
"have regard to the housing strategies set by local authorities for the purposes of the housing investment programme process when determining contributions".
The point is that local authorities are required to prepare housing strategy statements which set out their policies and programmes looking at least three years ahead. That is part of the process for allocating resources for housing capital expenditure. Those strategic documents are required to present a picture of housing needs and resources across the whole area covered by that local authority. Therefore, they cover not only action by the local authority but the contributions made by others, including private sector individuals, banks, housing associations and so forth.
Allocation of 60 per cent. of housing capital resources at regional level is currently made at the discretion of the Government's regional offices. It is currently proposed to increase that to 100 per cent. in 1997–98. However, I understand that that is the subject of consultation. The primary criterion for the use of such discretion is an assessment of the efficiency and

1593
effectiveness of each authority in the region. The key evidence for that assessment is currently provided by the local authority housing strategy.
Department of the Environment guidance on private sector renewal strategies requires that the policy be based on information about the current state of the private stock—we return to a previous amendment that I moved—and its occupation, and, where possible, that policy should draw on sound and recent surveys taken by the authority. Many authorities have undertaken such surveys. However, the problem is that there is a need for a system which draws not only on local information but on national information when assessing the condition of private housing, in determining the resources necessary for grants expenditure, and in considering the means by which that should be allocated. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of resources. Amendment No. 112, which deals with resources, is relevant to that issue.
Amendment No. 114 requires the Secretary of State to take account of the need for clearance action when determining the level of resources available for renewal activity. The current subsidy system for private housing renewal was introduced, among other things, to encourage balanced decisions between clearance and renovation and to direct the energies of local authorities towards particular types of activities such as area renewal. Prior to that local authorities could, in the main, disregard the financial regime. Decisions made on the balance between clearance and renovation were taken on the basis of physical, social and local political acceptability. Most local authority decisions on clearance were taken at operational rather than strategic level and were concerned with whether dwellings were unfit, whether they could be improved, at what cost and so forth. But the current subsidy system, in its ability to encourage balanced strategic decisions about clearance and renovation, now appears to us to be being undermined, not least—and I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said—by the inadequacy of the available national resources for private sector renewal.
These two amendments are attached to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I believe that that is for the convenience of the Committee so that we can have a discussion about resources and how they should be allocated. However, although the amendments to which I have been speaking come later in the Bill, they are not unimportant; in fact, they are extremely important.
Lord Lucas: After that admirably concise explanation of the amendments, I am afraid that I may take a little longer in replying. There is much in the amendments that we like but I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the Committee that that which we like in the amendments is already in the Bill.
I begin with an explanation of the allocation arrangements as they will be following the enactment of the Bill. The Government propose that the resources for private sector renewal will continue to be ring-fenced; that is, they will be allocated to local authorities as two separately identified parts of the housing investment
1594
programme allocation, one for disabled facilities grants and one for authorities' activities in tackling unfitness and disrepair in private sector housing.
The resources available are divided between the Government Offices for the Regions on the basis of indicators of need for each region. The indicators used are based on levels of housing fitness and cost to make fit for those who are grant eligible using information from the English House Condition Survey. Importantly, they are agreed with the local authority associations before being adopted. Changes to the methodology employed may be made to meet the associations' concerns before they are finally agreed.
Prior to the commencement of each year's housing investment programme round, there is consultation with local authority associations on its operation and, following this, the department issues guidance to local authorities to assist them in preparing their housing investment programme strategies. Once the strategies are submitted, the government offices meet with each authority to discuss their bid.
The government offices will make recommendations to Ministers on the allocation of the resources to individual authorities in their region. This allocation will be arrived at by looking at the past performance of the authority in dealing with private sector renewal and the strategy they have presented for dealing with it in the future while having a regard to indicators of need at a local level. This is a similar process to that which we have followed in previous years but in future, once the pressure to give mandatory grants is removed, more emphasis can be placed on local authorities' strategies and their performance measured against those strategies. Once the final allocations have been decided, we intend that they will be announced by way of a parliamentary Question and press release, as at present.
I turn now to the amendments. Those to Clause 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, add nothing of substance to the current procedure for announcing the allocations. In practice the proposal would create arrangements for renewal programmes quite separate from those for other parts of the housing investment programme. I feel sure this would not be the intention of the noble Lord.
The amendments to Clause 91 would introduce a number of requirements as regards the level of contributions paid, the rate of those contributions, and the amount allocated for clearance action. Members of the Committee will have noted from my explanation how the allocation system is intended to work and the part that the strategies produced by local authorities will play in that allocation system. Indeed, the thrust of this entire package of measures is to make those strategies pivotal to the distribution of resources.
To suggest, as Amendment No. 111 does, that those strategies should in some way determine the level of resources available nationally for private sector renewal is simply not feasible. The resources made available through the Public Expenditure Survey process to be shared between the department's programmes are finite. I recognise the need to consider fully the resources required for private sector renewal but they must be

1595
considered alongside the competing needs of other housing programmes. Local authorities' housing strategies should be aimed at demonstrating how they will make the best use of the resources that can be made available and not as a tool for determining the extent of those resources.
Another part of this question of resources is the rate of contributions made by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 112 would require that local authorities' housing strategies are taken into account when setting this level. A number of factors can be taken into account when assessing what an appropriate rate might be and the information from those strategies is certainly one of them.
The grants are in fact a public investment in a third party's assets. Therefore, I believe we have struck a suitable balance with the current rate of 60 per cent. subsidy. That impacts on the overall level of expenditure. Were the subsidy rate to be increased, then we would have to accept an overall reduction in the resources towards private sector renewal. That cannot benefit those who we all acknowledge are in need. I do not believe that it would be beneficial to reduce the level below 60 per cent. even though it would enable more to be achieved overall.
Resources are allocated to individual authorities on the basis of their past performance and their strategy and with reference to an indicator of need which takes account of the level of unfit dwellings in the local authority's area. When dealing with unfit property, local authorities are required to decide how best to use the resources provided—whether to renovate or, if necessary, clear property. That will be reflected in an authority's strategy, which can then be taken into account when considering its allocation. As noble Lords can see, Amendment No. 114 does not add anything of substance to what is proposed. Given the details of the allocation process that we intend to follow, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether I may pick up one aspect of what the Minister has just said. As I recall it, he said that the expenditure patterns would be determined on the basis of previous experience. We are effectively talking about a discretionary system where local authorities have discretion to determine matters at local level. Moreover, there is the prospect of change in that situation—I can think in terms of changes of political control which might engender a change in strategy. If the expenditure pattern is to be based on past history, that would effectively deny the opportunity for discretion by the local authorities and the possibility of change. From the Government's point of view, that change may go either way. It might fall more in line with government policy or go in a slightly different direction. But we are talking about discretion and I hope that the Government will not curtail local authorities' ability to exercise that discretion.
Lord Lucas: I believe that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the comfort which he seeks. As I understand it, the discretion is not to be fettered
1596
as to the way in which the policy is expressed or changed. We are looking at the effectiveness with which local authorities have put past policies into practice and whether the current proposals are such as to persuade us that effectiveness in the current year will be different, improved or worse. That will very much affect our thinking as to the level of grant which is appropriate rather than, as the noble Lord said, any change of political control to which we look forward in the spring.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord indicated that the procedures envisaged go quite a long way towards meeting what is inherent in the amendments which I propose and also those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Nevertheless, I still have two doubts in my mind about all this: first, whether the present trend towards the progressive diminution of resources made available for renovation and clearance will not continue; and secondly, I am not absolutely clear how, within those procedures, a strategic approach can be adopted. It seems that that is to be reviewed annually based on past practice and I do not quite see how a forward-looking strategy would fit into the procedures. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me on those two points.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: So far as concerns funding, I can go no further than that which has already been published; namely, that the resources for 1996–97 will be maintained at their previous level. On the question of strategy, we see the local level, where knowledge of exact local conditions and needs is to be found, as best. That is where we are encouraging it to develop.
Lord Ezra: I shall study carefully what the Minister said and, pending my consideration of his response and of the question of whether to return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Applications for grants]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 29.
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, it may be for the convenience of Members of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 to 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 85 and 268. We come now to a rather delicate matter which has been reviewed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this place; namely, the extent to which Secretaries of State may legislate and produce subordinate orders, regulations and prescriptions and to what extent they are able to be revised by Parliament.
I turn first to Amendment No. 7 which illustrates a number of the amendments I have tabled. It is odd that Clause 2 as drafted should have a series of "particulars" which are specified on the face of the Bill and then, as a sort of appendix, the expression,

1597
"such other particulars as may be prescribed".
It seems to me that convenience might have it that all one does is put down a clause saying that such particulars "may be prescribed" without enumerating anything that happens before. That is the effect of subsection (2)(d).
There are similar arrangements in, for example, Clause 2(3)(b) which says that,
"'preliminary or ancillary services and charges' are specified for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State".
There are various points at which the Secretary of State is empowered by the Bill, if it is passed, to make prescriptions, definitions or directions—or, indeed, whatever it may be—without parliamentary approval. As Members of the Committee would expect, that has attracted the attention of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The very substantive amendment in the group is Amendment No. 11 which responds to a point made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. As drafted, Clause 5 imposes a very general power on the Secretary of State to exclude works from eligibility for grant aid by direction. It is not surprising that the Select Committee in this place commented on the clause. It observed that, at first sight, the clause raises a case for some degree of parliamentary control. In effect, the Secretary of State will have the power to revise fundamental features of the proposed system for grant aid and to do so without reference to Parliament. I do not want to go into detail in that respect because, within the group, there are certain government amendments which no doubt the noble Earl will wish to speak to in response to my moving Amendment No. 7. I should therefore like to reserve my further comments until I have heard what the noble Earl has to propose for the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, we are now discussing a fairly long group of amendments which covers many points. I believe the matter which really concerns the noble Lord is how the Government intend to carry out this part of the Bill. If I may say so, it was quite right for the noble Lord to table the amendments because people are most sensitive—and rightly so—to delegated powers and, indeed, there are several such powers in the Bill.
I believe it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to explain how we see those powers working. Many of the provisions are in fact similar to each other. That is because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. It deals with each grant separately and, therefore, they can be grouped under fairly broad headings.
The first category concerns eligibility. Amendments Nos. 8 to 11, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, which are tabled in my name, and Amendment No. 268, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, broadly fall into this category. We believe that setting out the scope of the grant regime, including those who are eligible for the works for
1598
which grant assistance can be paid, is important. These are agreed by Parliament and their inclusion within the primary legislation ensures that there is consistency nationally. However, in our ever-changing world, we cannot exclude the possibility that changes might interfere with the proper working of the legislation unless we make it flexible. It is therefore important to have some scope to fine tune the provisions when that is necessary.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 tabled in my name convert the powers of the Secretary of State to exclude certain works from grant aid from a direction-making power to a regulation-making power. That reflects the concerns of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, that the Bill as drafted allows changes to be made on the direction of the Secretary of State, which would be an executive decision. The amendments will therefore require regulations to be made which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
A second category of powers broadly encompasses means testing and the form of application. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are relevant to that category. We believe that the means testing of grant applicants is the most effective way of ensuring that the available resources are targeted on households which are most in need of help with repairs, improvements or adaptations. The power for the Secretary of State to prescribe details relating to the financial circumstances of applicants and to obtain details on other matters in the grant application form further protects resources and will help authorities to reach correct decisions in determining grant.
There are several powers concerning tenancy and occupancy requirements. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are relevant here. We believe that it is an important principle that grant should primarily be to help those who cannot meet their obligation to maintain their property properly. We have attempted to reflect that in relation to the private rented sector. However, it is clear that there are cases where those rules are not appropriate or are difficult to apply. We have tried to cater for most eventualities in the primary legislation, but experience teaches that new cases do arise. Nevertheless, we wish to have in place some general principles and we believe it is right that a variation from them should lie with the Secretary of State if conditions and circumstances change.
Another group of powers relates to the prior qualifying period and the conditions leading to recovery of grant. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and Amendment No. 85 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are relevant. A main aim of the grant system is to assist people to remain in their homes. In achieving that aim, we think it appropriate that those seeking grant should meet a prior qualifying period of ownership and residence. It is appropriate also to require grant to be repaid in full if the applicant fails to comply with the grant conditions. However, we recognise that there will be circumstances where, through no fault of the

1599
applicant, he will be unable to fulfil a condition normally requiring grant to be repaid. In such cases there is provision for the authority to waive recovery. We believe that these provisions help protect resources by reducing opportunities for speculative applications.
A fifth group of powers concerns the use of grant. Amendment No. 32, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, falls into that category. We think it appropriate that the Secretary of State has the power to vary the purposes for which renovation grant may be given. This is to ensure that he may take appropriate steps to exclude from grant aid certain works for which assistance is available under other legislation or under a particular government initiative and therefore prevent the risk of double funding. In the past it has also been the case that the purposes have been added to, as was the case for the inclusion of the replacement of lead pipes within the scope of minor works assistance.
There are a few remaining powers which do not come within the categories I have described. The Secretary of State has the power to specify by order a maximum amount of grant under Clause 36 and the total amount or value of home repair assistance that may be given under Clause 76. Experience under existing legislation has shown the power to specify a grant maximum to be important in protecting authorities from excessive demands. While we hope that this will be unnecessary for discretionary grant, it cannot be discounted and therefore we believe it is wise to have such precautions. The use of a maximum for home repair assistance is intended to help emphasise the lesser nature of works intended compared with a discretionary renovation grant. The power to change the maxima is a realistic provision to be able to respond to changing circumstances.
A number of different amendments in this group seek to alter in some way what the Bill proposes, but I thought it helpful to explain to the Committee what we propose, and why. I hope that that explanation will have allayed some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The noble Lord specifically referred to Amendment No. 11. That amendment would require the Secretary of State, before making an order bringing the clause into force, to publish and to update annually a report explaining how his powers under the clause shall be used. Amendment No. 268 provides that provisions in the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has published such a report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reminded the Committee, the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers reported to the House on 21st February on the proposed use of delegated powers contained in the Bill. The report stated:
"This power to exclude works from grant aid by direction of the Secretary of State could have a very substantial impact on those who would otherwise qualify for grants under Chapter 1. This raises at first sight a case for some degree of parliamentary control. It may be that it will be necessary for the power to be exercised on a case by case basis taking account of local circumstances; and this may be why its exercise has been excluded from parliamentary control. Before reaching a judgment on these issues the House may think it appropriate to invite the Government to explain how it proposes to use this power".
1600
That is the reason why I have taken this opportunity to explain how we propose to use it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. I thank the Minister for his full response. Perhaps I may make one point and ask the Minister a couple of questions.
First, one of the advantages of the new regime that we put in place is to give a discretion to local authorities to operate the new grant regime as they think best as regards their local community. There is a downside to discretion but also an upside. It enables a local authority to determine what is best for its local area. The Minister referred to two situations where the Government are effectively taking it upon themselves to restrict local discretion. Perhaps I may give two examples to the Minister. He referred to the three-year wait before grant application can be made. The argument for that is that it enables people to remain in their own homes.
There is a situation at the other end of the spectrum. Perhaps I may cite my own experience. When my wife and I bought our first home it was in need of improvement. We received a local authority grant to do that within a month or so of moving in Within a year our first child was born. If we had had to wait three years before we received the grant, our children may have spent their most crucial years in substandard accommodation. Allowing local authorities a discretion to determine what is best for their local community will be beneficial.
The other example applies to the long-term and short-term objectives. The Minister cited the example of channelling the limited resources which he implied will be available to those with the greatest needs. We can think of two situations. One is where the bulk of the money is channelled into what might be described as immediate need which gives a short-term improvement to private housing. Within relatively few years more expenditure is required. Alternatively, one can consider investing in long term projects. That provides a life expectancy for a building of perhaps another 50 years. The discretion should be available to local authorities depending on local circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may ask him a question along similar lines. I am grateful to the noble Earl for commenting on Amendment No. 85. I had not spoken to it. It seems to me that his answer contradicts to a quite considerable extent the assurance given a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In response to my noble friend Lord Ezra, he said that strategies were best set locally.
Amendment No. 85 seeks to amend Clause 55 which gives the local housing authority the power to impose other conditions at its discretion when approving an application for a grant provided that the authority has the consent of the Secretary of State. Does that give local authorities the flexibility they should have? It seems to me that the provision would add to the Secretary of State's own administrative caseload, but that is perhaps a matter for him and not for me.

1601
If the Government are not minded to move on this point, will the Minister further explain how the power will be used? Do the Government propose to give general consents covering specific categories—in other words, an umbrella consent? Alternatively, do they propose to examine each application on its own merits?
On the more general matter to which attention was drawn by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, I am sorry that the Government did not take the opportunity to explain what consultation processes they would go through before laying any further regulations. In an area where there will be much experience on the ground, it would be helpful if the Government could say that they will take full note of that experience and consult widely. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that is what the Government intend, but it would be good to have it on the record.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wish to reinforce what the noble Baroness said, particularly in respect of government Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 which deal with the point raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I accept that regulations are subject to a parliamentary procedure. Nevertheless, as the Committee knows, if it is challenged, that parliamentary procedure involves rather cumbrous processes.
I would expect the Government to consult widely before introducing regulations which, after all, could have a substantial impact on the grant system. I would also expect the Government to be aware of their consequences and to explain such regulations before putting them forward. I do not suggest that we should move from here to primary legislation, but I wish to hear from the Minister that what I have suggested is the case and that there would be wide consultation, which should be made public, before the powers under the amendments to Clause 5, to which the noble Earl spoke and which he is about to move, are given to the Government.
Earl Ferrers: Members of the Committee have asked a number of questions, including the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He explained the dramas he experienced in moving into a house where, if he had been unable to obtain the grant within three years, he would, as they say in Norfolk, have been in a muddle. I can understand that. By raising the point now, he has pre-empted what I intended to say later, referring to Clause 10. We accept that in certain areas the conditions that normally apply will not do so. They include conversions, works for fire precautions to provide a means of escape from fire, properties in a renewal area and so on.
We wish there to be a presumption that the three-year prior qualifying period should apply, but we have taken note of the representation which was made before the publication of the Bill and which was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, this evening. At a later stage, we intend to bring forward an amendment to give local authorities the discretion to disapply the condition to individual applications where to give grant will be in accord with the local strategy. I believe that that ought
1602
to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, as well as others. A number of local authorities, although generally supporting the principle of a prior qualifying period, have expressed concern that some deserving cases would be excluded from grant.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about her Amendment No. 85. She thought that my answer might not agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lucas. There is never any disagreement with what my noble friend Lord Lucas says, but I shall try to satisfy her. The provisions in the Bill set out the broad parameters within which local authorities can provide renovation grants. However, there must be an element of central control so as to ensure that all local authorities adopt consistency of approach across the country and that changes are carried out in a controlled manner. That is why we think it is right that authorities should require the consent of the Secretary of State before they apply additional grant conditions.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether we would consult widely before making the regulations and take on board the wealth of experience that exists. The answer is that we will consult widely over it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As regards consultation, can the noble Earl reassure me that the results of the consultation process will be made public?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. He also pointed out that if the alterations are approved, with Parliament taking responsibility, parliamentary procedures are cumbersome under the negative resolution procedure. I know what the noble Lord means and it is not the first time that the suggestion has been made. It is always made when we produce a negative resolution procedure. The only alternative is to have an affirmative resolution procedure which takes up much parliamentary time. It is a recognised way of getting parliamentary approval. If noble Lords or others do not like it, they can always debate it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, shakes his head and I understand why, but it is a matter of parliamentary approval. Without my amendments, we would not have had parliamentary approval. Therefore, I should have expected the noble Lord to welcome the amendments wholeheartedly. I am sorry that he retains a minor grudge over it, but I am sure that it is not deep.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is certainly not deep; the noble Earl understands exactly what I am grudging about. He knows that if he were in my place he would be equally grudging, if not more so, as he may find out in the course of time. We have had a good debate on delegated powers and the rights that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to do certain things. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his long response to a number of points in the group. With the reservation that I shall have to read carefully what the noble Earl said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Ineligible applicants]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [The age of the property]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Excluded descriptions of works]:
[Amendment No. 11 rot moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("direction of') and insert ("regulations made by").
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("Directions may be given") and insert ("Regulations may be made with respect").
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("given") and insert ("made").
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("Directions") and insert ("Regulations").
The noble Earl said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 12 to 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 6 [Defective dwellings]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, leave out lines 42 and 43.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I feel that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. With the leave of the Committee I shall cover the debate on Clause 8 stand part. I also hope, before the Minister's remarks, at least to have addressed Amendments Nos. 21 and 35 standing in his name. These are almost entirely drafting points.
Turning to Clause 6, and to lines 42 and 43. on page 3 of the Bill, to which my Amendment No. 16 is addressed, I am not entirely certain, and should be grateful if the Minister can help me, what is meant in Clause 6(1)(c), which reads:
"required to reinstate that defective dwelling".
That seems a rather odd expression. I should be grateful if the Minister will say what the phrase "reinstate that defective dwelling" means.
Moving on to Amendment No. 17, which relates to Clause 7, I am not entirely certain about the expression, "or proposes to acquire". I shall be grateful if the Minister will spell out what the expression means. Amendment No. 18 relates to the same provision, "propose to acquire". I am not quite sure whether in relation to an applicant it is a general proposition: I should like to buy something; I have signed a contract to buy something; I propose to buy something; my estate agent proposes that I should buy something. I am not sure what that means in practice. I ask this in order to guide interpretation of the statute when the Bill becomes law.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 35 are government amendments, and I wait to hear an explanation from the Minister as to his intention.
If I might subsume in this introduction the debate on Clause 8 stand part, I am a little worried about the certificates that the clause requires in the case of an owner's application. The clause as drafted states,
"An 'owner-occupation certificate' certifies",
this, that and thus. I am a little concerned that it may lead to difficulty, particularly for those people who are vulnerable, whether they are old, disabled or whatever. They may find it almost impossible to fulfil the requirements of the clause. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would explain how the Government see those requirements being met. I am afraid that this is something of a rag-bag of a group of amendments. However, I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to satisfy me on all these points. They are probing 0070oints, and are not meant to alter the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord kindly suggested that his remarks related to a number of different amendments which he described collectively as a rag-bag. That is no derogatory term. They are all very important and are all different. I shall do my best, as usual, to satisfy the noble Lord.
In regard to Amendment No. 16, Clause 6 ensures that no grant can be approved under the Bill for dwellings designated as defective under Section 528 or 529 of the Housing Act 1985 if grant under Part XVI of that Act is already available for the same purpose.
The clause as drafted is not as plain as one might wish. However, it reflects—and this is important—the wording of the 1985 Act, under which reinstatement of defective dwellings has, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be glad to know, a specific meaning. If Clause (6)(1)(c) were removed, which would be the effect of this amendment, there would be a risk of double funding.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, Clause 7 sets out the criteria for eligibility of owners and tenants to apply for a renovation grant. It is essential that grant resources should be aimed at those who are responsible for the cost of repairs and improvements and who have the power to carry out the works to the property.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would either alter the criteria or would remove the Secretary of State's power to make an order extending eligibility, where that is thought necessary or desirable, to individuals or descriptions of tenants who do not meet the criteria in the primary legislation.
Amendment No. 17 would remove from those eligible to apply for an owner's renovation grant those who had not yet acquired an owner's interest in the property but were in the process of doing so.
As part of their strategy, many local authorities have plans to use the grant system to help bring empty property back into housing use and to renew run-down areas. We consider that, in some instances, encouraging potential purchasers into the area by making it possible for them to apply for a grant can be an essential part of a local authority's initiative. For that reason we have excluded landlord's grants and grant for properties in renewal areas

1605
from the new prior residence and ownership qualification in Clause 10. To remove eligibility to apply for renovation grant from those who are in the process of buying a property but have not yet completed their purchase, which would be the effect of this amendment, could hinder schemes of benefit to the local community.
Obviously, the renovation grant should not be used—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I am most grateful. He said, "in the process of acquiring". Is that the definition—which I willingly accept—of "proposes to acquire"?
Earl Ferrers: I am not sure what is the noble Lord's question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry. I failed to express myself carefully. My Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 were probing amendments, to find out the meaning of the expression "proposes to acquire" in Clause 7.
As I understand it, in his response the noble Earl is saying that "proposes to acquire" equals "in the process of acquiring", which is an advance on the expression "proposes to acquire". I do not want to jump the noble Earl into anything. I should simply like to know whether I am right in thinking that that was his meaning.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is deeply generous in not wishing to bounce me. In normal English parlance I believe that the noble Lord is correct. However, if I might, I should like to consider the impact of his remarks and give him a considered view.
Obviously, as to what is meant by "in the process of acquiring", somebody goes to a person and says, "Can I buy your house?", the person agrees and one is in the process of making arrangements in relation to mortgages, banks, etc. One can never tell whether the process will work out in practice, because for one reason or another the parties may not bring the matter to fruition. But in general that is what is meant by "in the process of acquiring". If the noble Lord would like a more specific, considered view, I will let him have one later.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I understand what he means by "in the process of acquiring". The question I was trying to put was: does the expression in the Bill, "proposes to acquire", equal "in the process of acquiring"? They are in my view two slightly different things.
Earl Ferrers: Yes, the noble Lord is right. I now see the difficulty that he labours under. For instance, I might think that the noble Lord's house is a very nice one and should like to buy it, but the noble Lord has no intention of selling. I say that I propose to buy that wretched man's house—not referring to the noble Lord but to some other person who would come under that description—I propose to buy that fellow's house. But of course the fellow concerned may not wish to sell it. In that case that would fall right outside the Bill.
1606
With regard to my own Amendments Nos. 21 and 35, where a tenant's application is made for either a renovation grant under Clause 9 or a disabled facilities grant under Clause 23, the application should normally be supported by a certificate of intended letting provided by the applicant's landlord.
Such a certificate need not be provided, though, where the local authority considers that it would be unreasonable in the circumstances to ask for one. These amendments would change the emphasis in relation to obtaining a landlord's certificate by allowing the local authority not to require a certificate rather than not to seek one. In other words, it is not necessary to have the certificate but one must try to obtain the certificate. I hope that that will make it clear that the landlord will not have the option of refusing a certificate where the local authority wants one but it leaves the authorities free not to require certification in appropriate cases.
I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord's concern as well as explaining the purposes of my amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am, as always, most grateful to the noble Earl. I agree with the government amendments to which he referred. After his explanation on the subject of my amendments, Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, on the question of "proposes" to acquire, I wonder whether it would be better to say in the Bill what the noble Earl said recently at the Dispatch Box: instead of "proposes to acquire" say "in the process of acquiring". That would make it absolutely clear to my mind that that is what we are talking about. The noble Earl has made it clear to me, but I do not see why it should not be in the Bill rather than just have a ministerial explanation of what I perceive to be a slightly doubtful expression.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord makes a perfectly reasonable point. I shall certainly consider it. I have never thought that any words that I might use at the Dispatch Box would find themselves in primary legislation; but if they do, I shall ensure that the words "wretched fellow" are kept out. I shall certainly look at the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl used the expression "wretched man" and now he uses the words "wretched fellow", which is perhaps even more insulting. The noble Earl's words may well, if I may say so, find themselves at some point in the future in some court judgment. I do feel that we ought to have this point in the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for considering the drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 7 [Renovation grants: owner's applications and tenant's applications]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Renovation grants: certificates required in case of tenant's application]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("seek") and insert ("require").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Renovation grants: prior qualifying period]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My noble friend Lord Monkswell and the noble Earl's responses have rather taken the wind out of my sails on the qualifying period. I understand that the Government will bring forward some amendment to Clause 10, and presumably Clause 28 which is linked to this matter, about the qualifying period. In our view, the three-year residence rule is unnecessary. It seems to have been brought in only to stop the perceived—as I use the word—use of public funds to increase artificially the value of unfit properties on sale.
I do not believe that there is any justification for the provision. My noble friend has made the point. I should like to see the prior qualifying period removed altogether. Nevertheless, if the Government intend to bring forward amendments to Clause 10, not simply to satisfy my noble friend Lord Monkswell and others like him, in some way as the noble Earl described, I shall wait to hear when those amendments will be brought forward and what they say.
Lord Monkswell: I apologise to my noble friend for my inconsideration in talking to this matter before we came to it. Since I am on my feet, perhaps I may just mention one other aspect of the clause.
The first line of the clause uses the word "entertain":
"A local housing authority shall not entertain an application".
I do not know whether I am right, but I would read those words to mean that if the authority receives an application which falls into the particular category, it must be excluded. The authority cannot entertain it. But I believe that the Government's intention is that the local authority should not approve the application. If the word "approve" were used instead of "entertain", effectively the application could lie on the table until the criterion was met rather than having to be rejected and reinstated at some later date when the criterion is met.
I just throw that comment in, but I support my noble friend in arguing against the three-year rule, which I believe the Minister has accepted already and I thank him for it.
Baroness Hamwee: I was one of those who expressed concern about Clause 10 at Second Reading. I am glad to hear that the Government are considering
1608
amending it. I imagine that it may partly be in response to comments from local authorities about the administrative difficulties of assessing the three-year residence and knowing what evidence is to be required.
More importantly, I hope that the Government will take the amendment of the clause as an opportunity to put the provision more squarely on the basis of the grant being an incentive to improve housing stock. To have to wait for three years in what are by definition unsatisfactory conditions can be no incentive to moving on, improving stock, selling up and so on. I feel that it is important that grants should be made available to those who may not have a great deal of capital in order to buy and who perhaps can only buy housing that will need improvement. It is fundamental to the good working of the scheme that those people are encouraged.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the distress of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in having the wind taken out of his sails by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. If it is any comfort to him, he took the wind out of my sails too. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, can be an irritant—in the most delightful way—to both of us.
I explained, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that there are reasons for specifying a three-year period. However, many representations have been made to say that that would be too restricting, and we therefore propose to bring forward an amendment to Clause 28(2).
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asks when the amendment will be provided. I can only say at some time. The chances are that it will be before Report stage, but I cannot guarantee that. The noble Lord asks what the amendment will say. Of course I cannot tell him that. I do not know what will be in it. We will try to ensure that the points that are of concern are reflected in it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will understand that I cannot go further than that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the provision should be an incentive to improve houses and that that should underline the sentiments of the amendment. I shall ensure that her comments are taken into account. The whole point of introducing an amendment is to do just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said that we should look at the first line of Clause 10. At his invitation, I did so. It says,
"A local housing authority shall not entertain an application".
The noble Lord said that that really means that the local authority shall not approve an application. But that is not what it means. It means that the application will not be entertained; it will not even be considered unless paragraphs (a) and (b) are satisfied. Paragraph (a) states,
"that the ownership or tenancy condition … was met throughout the qualifying period".
Paragraph (b) states,
"that the applicant lived in the dwelling as his only or main residence".

1609
If the applicants do not go through that hoop, the application is not even entertained or considered. It is not a question of approval.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The upshot of this debate is that the Government will bring forward amendments of a King Lear like nature; they know not what. We are no further forward in knowing what the Government are thinking because the Minister cannot tell us.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, cannot get away with that. He knows perfectly well that he, his noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that three years is too long and asked why do we not table an amendment to say that we will reduce it. I said that we will but I cannot tell him what the wording will be because it has not yet been approved. Had the wording been approved the amendment would have been brought forward at Committee stage rather than at Report stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Of course I am not asking for the actual wording of the amendment. I would simply like the noble Earl, unlike King Lear, to say roughly what the amendment will seek to do. However, we have to wait, as we had to wait for the end of King Lear, for quite a long time. I am happy to wait for as long as the noble Earl wishes, as long as the amendment to Clause 8 comes before this Committee is resolved into the House and we go on to the Report stage of the Bill. If it is not here by then, we shall need to table our own amendment to Clause 8.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Prior qualifying period: the ownership or tenancy condition]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The local housing authority may treat a person as continuing to meet the residence requirement in subsection (2)(a) or (b)(ii) for up to a year after he has, by reason of age or infirmity—

(a) gone to live with and be cared for by a member of his family, or

(b) gone to live in a hospital, hospice, sheltered housing, residential care home or similar institution.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46.
The main purpose of renovation grants is to help those who genuinely cannot afford the cost of essential repairs and improvements to remain living in their homes; or to meet the cost of repairs and improvements to rented accommodation where the consequent increase in rental income would not be sufficient to meet repayments on a loan taken out for that purpose. It is not intended to help speculative purchasers increase their profits on the sale of the property or to enable an applicant to move up market by buying an unfit property and then improving it with the benefit of a renovation grant. It is to prevent such use that we are introducing the prior residence or ownership qualification under Clause 10.
Subsection (2) of Clause 11 allows the prior residence qualification to be treated as met if, immediately before his death, the family member from whom the applicant inherited the property met the requirements under Clause 10. Amendment No. 24 would allow the deceased owner to be treated as having met the requirements where, for a period of up to one year, he had had to leave his home to receive care in a hospital or residential home, for example, or from a member of his family.
We considered that it would be inappropriate to apply a prior year ownership qualification to all applications for HMO (house in multiple occupation) grants. It might discourage landlords who have recently acquired a house in multiple occupation in poor repair and in need of financial help to carry out repairs for the benefit of existing tenants or licensees, from carrying out works. That would penalise the occupants of the house in multiple occupation who would already be living in poor conditions.
Although the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make an order applying the ownership condition to applications for HMO grant, we have no plans to use that power at present. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Renovation grants: purposes for which grant may be given]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 17, after ("adequate") insert (" , fuel efficient").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 25 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 and 47, which are similar amendments to subsequent clauses. It is my intention to probe the Government's intention in relation to this element of Clause 12.
We can all appreciate the enormous advantages to the health of young people particularly, but also of the elderly, with the advent of central heating. I remember that in my early days in the 1940s and 1950s our bedrooms were not heated at all. We had coal fires but they were never lit. Subsequently, during the winter months, if we were not off school due to illness, the chances were that we had runny noses with all sorts of nasties being apparent.
Nowadays most children live in centrally heated houses and the prevalence for them of winter colds and coughs is much less. The health of the nation benefits as a result. But we need to be aware that there are still young children in our society who go to school with runny noses during the winter months.
That is the background to my question for the Government. I readily accept that the words of the amendment may not ensure the end result that I seek. A number of criteria are involved. I hope the Government will agree that facilities for space heating in domestic residences should be cheap, accessible, easy to operate and efficient. It is really to probe the Government's view and understanding of the meaning of the word "adequate" that I tabled Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I was most moved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, speak of the deprivations of his childhood and the bedroom where the fire was ever unlit. I had not realised that he had been to Eton too!
These amendments seek to introduce the principle of energy efficiency into the purposes for which various grants may be approved. The amendments in the group would require that where space heating is provided with grant aid, it is fuel efficient. The Government are committed to the principle of energy efficiency and the guidance to local authorities on the present grant system makes clear that heating provided should be energy efficient. However, if we prescribe in the primary legislation for space heating provided with grant aid to be fuel efficient, there is a possibility that some local authorities will give undue weight to state-of-the-art energy efficiency measures rather than the main purpose of the grant regime which is helping those in unfit property. On the other hand, there is also a danger that these amendments would lead to a reticence on the part of some local authorities to exercise their discretion to provide space heating tor fear of a requirement to go beyond what would be the norm. We would clearly not be serving the cause of energy efficiency well by following this route.
Committed as we are to the principles of energy efficiency under a changed grant system, we would clearly want energy efficient heating systems installed where local authorities assist in providing them and we will issue guidance to that effect. However, under the new system we want to give maximum freedom to local authorities to implement their local strategies. The current resource allocations for local authorities' housing investment programmes include a component for energy efficiency and we would expect the strategies under the new system to include a commitment to energy efficiency.
The primary aim of the grant system is to provide basic facilities and amenities to those who would not otherwise be able to afford them. Giving authorities the statutory power to provide adequate heating and thermal insulation meets this aim. Local authorities aided by the guidance we intend to issue may then attach their own importance to matters of fuel efficiency without their discretion being fettered by over-prescriptive legislative requirements. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Government for that explanation of the background and the current workings of the scheme. I shall read more closely the explanation that has been given. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 31, after ("provide") insert ("or extend").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to permit the use of grants for the conversion of properties to be used for their extension. Currently conversion grants are used primarily to convert single
1612
households into houses of multiple occupation, to convert properties comprising bedsits into self-contained flats and to convert properties above shops into flats. As Members of the Committee will be aware, government guidance specifically prohibits the use of conversion grants which results in a reduction in the number of dwellings; for example, by creating a larger dwelling from two smaller ones.
The Bill's wording contains the more specific title of conversion application. It allows for the provision of single dwellings or HMOs but does not allow for the creation of a larger home from other smaller dwellings. My amendment would enable an authority to use grant aid to extend an existing dwelling by the incorporation of an additional adjacent dwelling—making two dwellings into one larger dwelling. I hope that that is understandable to the Committee.
Authorities often find that a large number of small-scale residential units is available in their area but that there is a lack of larger-scale units. The proposed amendment would enable an authority to meet more fully the housing needs in its area. I stress that the number of cases in which this type of assistance would be required is relatively small. Nevertheless, it seems to us to be a useful amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. It will assist in bringing back into residential use empty properties above rows of shops which are often too small for modem use. The conversion of two into one will make proper and adequate use of them rather than leaving them, as they so often are at the moment, idle and a wasted asset for the nation.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord's amendment, as he clearly explained to us, would enable grant to be given for extensions as well as for conversions. The whole purpose of renovation grants is that they should be for the improvement of a dwelling. It seems to me that that may well cover smaller extensions to dwellings. I would regard as a reasonable use of a renovation grant the extension of a house to provide a lavatory or a bathroom where those were not present in the house. But to enable a proper big extension to be grant-aided by this method would be wrong because the purpose of the grants is to renovate buildings which are in a bad state of repair. If you wanted to convert two houses into one you could get a discretionary renovation grant to do it. The main purpose is to ensure that those houses or places of residence which are in bad order should have grant in order to improve their condition. Larger extensions would, on the whole, fall outside the proper purpose of renovation grants which are primarily to secure the repair of existing buildings and not to subsidise the provision of new ones.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response, although I find it rather disappointing. The objective of any local housing authority is to meet the housing need in its area. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, quite rightly pointed out, my amendment would contribute to that objective. There is little likelihood that the power would be used very often.

1613
Furthermore, the role of grants has evolved over the years. They have been payable to improve, to provide amenities, to make fit for human habitation, to provide facilities for disabled people, to create new dwellings, to deal with defective dwellings and to improve common parts of blocks of flats. All this comes from the same local authority budget. I do not see why the budget should not be used for the very modest purposes which my amendment puts forward. Nevertheless, I shall read carefully what the noble Earl has said. I shall probably come back to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Renovation grants: approval of application]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) A local housing authority shall approve any application for a renovation grant in respect of the following—

(a) properties occupied by a person with a disability;

(b) properties occupied by a person who is receiving services or grants for services from the local welfare authority as part of a care package;

(c) properties occupied by a person whose physical or mental health is affected by disrepair;

(d) properties occupied by a person over pensionable age.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that renovation grants remain mandatory for certain vulnerable groups in particular need of good housing. There are certain groups of people for whom living in unfit housing is particularly harmful and who will have the most difficulty in arranging and paying for renovation work themselves. The retention of mandatory renovation grants will assist them in maintaining good health and independent living and is thus likely to reduce expenditure on health and social services.
Older people who may be reliant only on the state pension often have low incomes and few savings with which to undertake costly repairs. The English housing condition survey of 1991 found that three-quarters of people on the lowest incomes occupying the worst housing were older people. Older people's ability to remain in control of their lives and maintain independence will be threatened if renovation grants are not available to them.
Good housing conditions are particularly important for those who have health or care needs. Targeting of mandatory grants on people with particular care and health needs will assist in preventing further expenditure on health and social services. Good housing is closely linked to good health. The harmful effects of poor housing on health are well recorded. The National Housing Forum, in the 1994 paper Papering over the cracks, cited research showing that dampness can lead to bronchial and respiratory illnesses; cold housing to hypothermia and increased susceptibility to other illnesses; and that unsafe houses can lead to accident and death. In 1992 the Government's The Health of the Nation strategy
1614
document said clearly that the home environment had a direct effect on health. It has been estimated that health problems caused by cold and damp housing costs the National Health Service some £800 million. Older people, and people with particular health problems or disabilities, have a need for warm, safe housing in order to maintain good health.
People with disabilities also require their housing to be of good quality in order for them to be able to maintain their independence. Disabled people are normally entitled to mandatory disabled facilities grants to assist with adaptations to their homes. If, however, their homes will be unfit on completion of the works, then the local authority can refuse a disabled facilities grant. Renovation grants to ensure that the property is made fit are thus particularly important to this group.
There are also clear links to be made between 'good housing and social services. Housing is increasingly being recognised as the cornerstone of community care policy. For some people the provision of decent housing will be a vital part of a social services care package to enable them to remain living in the community. The DoE's study Living Independently in 1994 found that over four-fifths of older people desire to remain in their own homes rather than move into specialist accommodation as they become more vulnerable. Increasingly, government and professionals believe that those in need of community care services should, where possible, have them provided in their own homes. That is only possible where homes are of a good standard. Poor housing increases older people's dependency and crisis situations. Expenditure on renovation grants for older people and those in need of care services can thus, in the long term, lead to savings in expenditure on costly residential care.
At Second Reading the Government suggested that the needs of these people could be met by the new home repair assistance grant if mandatory renovation grants were abolished. That is not a sufficient replacement for two reasons. First, home repairs assistance is a discretionary grant and thus older and disabled people will be reliant on the specific priorities set by local authorities. Older and disabled people in some areas may be unable to access grant assistance due to the local authority deciding to prioritise area-based renewal policies rather than focus on the needs of vulnerable occupiers.
Secondly, the amounts available under home repair assistance are considerably smaller than those under renovation grants. For renovation grants the current limit is £20,000. For home repair assistance it is proposed that the limit be £2,000 for any one application and £4,000 in any three years. For the houses in the worst disrepair, those amounts will not be sufficient. In 1994 the average amount of a mandatory renovation grant payment was over £10,000. Thus, for many people in housing in the worst condition, home repair assistance will not be able to take the place of the mandatory renovation grants for all unfit housing. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Yet again I very much welcome the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord

1615
Swinfen, and agree wholeheartedly with what he said. People with disabilities may find themselves in a Catch-22 situation where they are eligible for a disabled facilities grant so that their home can have the benefit of aids and adaptations but, if their home is of poor quality and in a bad condition, they may not he given the grant because the home itself is not good enough to justify the aids and adaptations.
That is an undesirable position for vulnerable people to find themselves in. Even if they did not need money for aids and adaptations, it is perfectly clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that they will find their health more adversely affected by a poor home than those who are in other aspects fit and well. So we are compounding the difficulties for vulnerable groups of people as specified in the amendment. If the amendment, or something like it, is not incorporated in the Bill, we shall find some very tough and hard cases of people who are obviously in need of help to improve their homes but who simply will not find that help forthcoming. I hope that the Government will find some way of accepting either the details of the amendment or the spirit of it in order to incorporate it in the legislation.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, and Lord Dubs, who have made out a very good case. I hope that we shall hear an encouraging reply from the Minister, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke enthusiastically about the value of the disabled facilities grant as regards Amendment No. 5. I hope that he too will feel it particularly important that the renovation grant stays for people with disabilities; otherwise the local authority can refuse the disabled facilities grant if the house is completely unfit on completion of the work.
Lord Lucas: I am surprised to find myself having considerably more faith in local authorities than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, appears to have in terms of their using powers that we wish to give them with good sense and as we would expect those powers to be used. The categories of people listed in the amendment include those most in need of help with renovation grants. We would expect that to be reflected in the policies adopted by local authorities. There are many other categories of people who might similarly be seen as being towards the top of the queue. We do not wish to support an amendment which would strike at the heart of the Bill and remove a very substantial element of discretion from local authorities when we are trying to give them that discretion so they can plan properly the provisions they want to see in their areas. Paragraph (c) of the amendment appears to be an almost universal category; namely,
"a person whose physical or mental health is affected by disrepair".
That can apply to almost anyone one cares to think of. The effect would be to entirely remove any local authority discretion and return us to a mandatory grant system. There are great advantages in local authorities having discretion. They are the proper people to exercise it at local level. We are sure that they will bear in mind all the points that have been so ably made by my noble
1616
friend Lord Swinfen. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment which, to our minds, would, if allowed to go forward, be greatly destructive of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: I find my noble friend's reply somewhat disappointing and rather unconstructive, particularly when one takes the total costs of community care into account as against the cost of mandatory grants for renovating property. I think that my noble friend has taken an extremely short-sighted view, possibly guided by his friends in the Treasury who, as far as I can see, can never see beyond the end of the current financial year and at the moment that is rather a short period.
There is some merit in what my noble friend said about paragraph (c) and I shall give serious consideration to that. It was never my intention to press the amendment to a Division this evening, so if the Committee will allow me to do so, I shall take the amendment away to reconsider it. However, I am likely to return at the next stage with a similar amendment—
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he can explain the extent of his disappointment. I apologise for having missed the beginning of his speech because I had to leave the Chamber briefly due to the business of another committee. However, as I read the amendment, it states:
"A local authority shall approve any application",
without regard to merit. That seems to be contrary to the whole intention of the Bill and to open the floodgates to wholly inappropriate grants being made to wholly inappropriate people. I thought that the purpose was to improve the standard of building. Therefore, some discretion must be given to the authorities as to whether or not to approve an application. If that is the effect of the amendment, I dare say that my noble friend would like to look at that point also before the next stage.
Lord Swinfen: I shall certainly look at the aspect which my noble friend has pointed out. Indeed, he has given me a much better response as to why the amendment should not be accepted than was given by the Government. I shall certainly take on board what he said. As I have said, I am likely to return with a redrafted amendment at the next stage, but I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (5)(a) above, where the applicant requests in writing that only part of the premises be made fit for human habitation, the authority may approve such an application.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 28, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 and 121 to 124.
The purpose of Amendment No. 28 is to permit a local authority to use grant aid to make part of a property fully fit for human habitation where that has the consent of the applicant. The provision is designed

1617
to deal with the case of, for instance, an elderly occupant who lives in only part of the property and who does not want the disruption of bringing the whole property up to a reasonable standard. There will be circumstances where a renovation grant, as it is traditionally understood, will be the best course of action, but where the applicant is not able or is not prepared to cope with the extent of the work that is required to remedy the unfitness. That is most likely to be the case with an elderly owner-occupier, but it may apply in other circumstances also. Although the provision of a home repair grant would be the first consideration, that is cash-limited and there will be cases where the appropriate works are too expensive.
Many properties are found to be unfit on the basis of serious disrepair and dampness. In many cases, that will require external refurbishment, such as reroofing or damp-proofing, to ensure that the dwelling is wind and weather-proof. The cost of such works may well exceed the £4,000 available as a home repair grant.
Although in principle it should be a minimum requirement to deal with all aspects of unfitness, the additional works, particularly where they involve substantial internal building works, could affect an older person's ability to cope with such an upheaval. In those circumstances, provided that the critical works are undertaken thus preventing further deterioration of the property, it might be appropriate to leave the total property unfit in some aspects (where that does not affect the current occupancy) at the request of the applicant.
Turning to the other amendments, Amendment No. 117 is a paving amendment for a schedule. The schedule amends the Housing Act 1985. Its purpose is to introduce a requirement that houses should be free from poor internal arrangement; to introduce a new requirement into the fitness standard stating that a house should be thermally efficient; to introduce a new requirement that a house should have adequate means of escape from fire, and other fire precautions; to introduce a further requirement into the fitness standard stating that no house should be significantly affected by radon; and to restore the ability of local housing authorities to take action in respect of houses and flats, parts of which—but not the whole—are unfit for human habitation. I recognise that that is a big mouthful, but I have a great deal of brief from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health which I am happy to let the Government have if they do not already have it. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to give a considered response to this series of amendments which, in my view, is of great importance to elderly people in the type of dwelling that I have described. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has made a number of convincing points which have the sympathy of all of us. He has asked me to give him a considered response, and I shall try to do so.
The amendments raise important questions about the housing fitness standard and the way in which it is applied in assessing fitness. A primary role of the
1618
housing fitness standard is to serve as a minimum standard for enforcement intervention by local authorities in private housing. Any additions made to the requirements of the fitness standard are therefore likely to increase the number of properties that can be determined unfit. That in turn—potentially at least—will expose more individuals to enforcement action by local authorities. Public intervention in that way is not always popular, but is sometimes necessary and it is sometimes even desirable. It is obviously right, however, that if we are to make any changes which would increase the likelihood of such intervention, those changes must be carefully considered.
Adding to the requirements of the fitness standard has implications for public resources. An increase in the number of properties that can be determined unfit would clearly bring increased demands for renovation grants, thereby adding pressure on the resources available to local authorities for private sector renewal—resources which opponents of the Government sometimes criticise as being too little.
I make no comment as to whether that would be a right or wrong thing to do, nor on the merits or otherwise of the additional requirements which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is seeking to add to the fitness standard under Amendment No. 124. No government would wish to impose the extra burdens described without the fullest consideration and consultation. The changes introduced by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 were preceded by extensive consultations and consideration. That is only right because so much hangs on the fitness standard that is obtained. I hope that the noble Lord will see the sense and value of such a process before any further changes are contemplated.
The noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 28 and 121 to 123 raise the important question of the application of fitness to part of a property. That brings us back to the standard. The major revision of the fitness standard introduced under the 1989 Act covered the standard's application as well as individual requirements. A more objective approach was introduced whereby fitness was determined by reference to each individual requirement in the standard and not to a combination of requirements as was the case previously. That the decision as to fitness is now based on a property having to meet each individual requirement means that the standard can only be sensibly applied to a complete unit of accommodation. If we did anything less and applied it to, say, a single room or cellar it would be unlikely to meet each of the wide-ranging requirements that are in the present standard.
I am aware that the issues covered by the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 28, 117 and 121 to 124 are not entirely new. Many of them were raised in 1993 under a Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The Government indicated then that they were not unsympathetic to some of the changes proposed, but that it would be premature to consider changes to the fitness standard and its application so soon after the substantial revision introduced under the 1989 Act. The changes under that Act represented the first major and considered revision

1619
of the fitness standard for over 30 years. I certainly do not suggest that the standard should remain fixed for a similar period.
The Government are not unsympathetic to the thought that, with the introduction of a new renovation grant system, it is sensible to look at the fitness standards again. This will enable full account to be taken of the views of practitioners and research that has been carried out over the past few years, all against the background of a changed grant regime. Obviously, a proper review of this nature cannot be conducted within the timescale of this Bill. It is not a matter to be taken lightly. But I can give your Lordships the assurance that when the Bill is out of the way we will set in train a review of the fitness standard and, in so doing, will seek views and ideas from bodies such as the local authority associations and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Committee will see the wisdom of looking at the issues which these amendments cover.
I know that if I do not mention the timing of such a review the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will press me as soon as I sit down. I will deny him the pleasure of doing so by telling him that I cannot be precise as to when it will be. But it would be the Government's intention to begin the review before the end of the year, with the aim of completing it as speedily as possible thereafter.
I hope that the noble Lord feels that I have given him a considered reply to his amendments. We see the importance of those amendments. I hope that he will also agree that if the fitness standards are to be changed it must be done after careful consideration and not lightly.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. On these matters we are at one. He recognises that they are important matters. The Government have addressed them. I recognise that they cannot be changed overnight and require proper consideration and consultation. The noble Earl assures me that the Government—if they are still in existence—will undertake a review of the fitness standard before the end of the year. I am very happy that they take the matter seriously. I can assure them that the next government will take it equally seriously. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl for his considered response. The Government have made an effort on this matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Common parts grants: landlord's and tenants' applications.]
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Common parts grants: purposes for which grant may be given.]
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11, line 10, at end insert—
(" ( ) to provide adequate sound insulation;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. Many people suffer stress related to the noise of neighbours and other occupants. The provision of grants for adequate sound-proofing would alleviate much of the stress and lead to better communities. Stress related to noise nuisance can have significant effects on people's mental and physical wellbeing. Often, there is no escape from stressful noise without adequate sound-proofing. In a block of flats with communal parts noise nuisance is often caused by residents and visitors to the building when using the stairs and entry door. Another cause of noise nuisance is children and young people congregating in common parts either to play or chat. I will not spend all evening going into the many causes of noise nuisance. This amendment is supported by a number of organisations for elderly and disabled people.
Lord Dubs: One notices in Clause 18 a long list of requirements or conditions where a common parts grant is available to help people who live in blocks of flats. It seems to me to be anomalous that adequate sound insulation has been omitted, perhaps by oversight. The argument in favour of giving people a bit of peace and quiet through sound insulation is a strong one. In blocks of flats noise can be one of the most distressing effects. It can upset people and prevent them from sleeping, functioning properly or enjoying their leisure. I do not talk of noisy parties in respect of which local authorities can take action. I refer to the whole range of noise which can make life miserable but which is not covered by the extreme circumstances of noisy parties in respect of which local authorities have powers. I believe it is a minimum requirement that people should have such silence or peace and quiet as is consistent with living in blocks of flats and the quality of sound insulation that can be provided. It is a small but important point that should make life for many people just that little bit better.
Lord Lucas: As far as concerns this amendment, the Government believe that such problems as are caused by noise are generally not associated with common parts. Common parts grants are normally given for works on the roof, exterior walls, stairs and the entrance to a block of flats which form the definition of common parts. Most noise nuisance emanates from the ceilings or floors of a dwelling and through the internal walls, none of which normally constitutes common parts.
As to the wider argument whether sound insulation, or the lack of it, should form part of the definition of a building that is unfit and the purposes for which grants are available to remedy such unfitness, I believe that that is best considered as part of our general review, rather than being hitched on as a separate subject when its effect, if agreed to, will be merely to dissipate the amount of funds available for perhaps more pressing needs.
Lord Swinfen: I do not want to pre-empt a later amendment which deals with sound insulation of individual houses, but what my noble friend said sounds

1621
helpful in relation to that amendment. I can see some force in his argument on this amendment. I shall read what he said and consider the position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Disabled facilities grants: owner's and tenant's applications]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 47, at end insert ("and—
(e) a local authority introductory tenant;").
The noble Lord said: In Her Majesty's Speech at the Opening of Parliament, mention was made of the Housing Bill. I suspect that the Bill we are currently discussing is part of a much bigger Housing Bill, the other part of which, under that name, is currently going through the other place. In that Bill there is mention of a local authority introductory tenant, which is not so far mentioned in this Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the new category of introductory tenant being introduced into the Housing Bill to be eligible to apply for disabled facilities grants. That new category of tenant will give rise to introductory tenancies for local authorities. All local authorities will have the option of giving new tenants of permanent housing an introductory tenancy for the first 12 months. During that time, if the tenant is deemed to have behaved in an anti-social manner he may be evicted quickly. The tenancy is designed to deal with tenants behaving in an anti-social fashion on council estates. I doubt very much whether many disabled people, particularly those with physical disabilities, behave in that manner.
A major difficulty arises for disabled people due to that new tenancy. Until the tenancy is confirmed at the end of the 12 months' introductory period, it is not a permanent tenancy. Therefore the Department of the Environment has confirmed to my advisers that people with an introductory tenancy will not be able to apply for disabled facilities grants.
In a letter to RADAR of 5th March this year the department stated in relation to introductory tenancies and facilities grants:
"It is unlikely that such a tenancy would qualify under the definition in Clause 20(5) of the Bill. Because of the potential short-term nature of the tenancy this exclusion would be in line with the general wish to ensure that the resources available are used to best effect rather than put at risk should the tenancy not be confirmed".
That would mean that a disabled person who has a high enough priority to be offered a local authority tenancy but who required certain adaptations—for example, a hoist or changes to a bathroom—would not even be able to apply for them until he or she had lived there for a year. The local authority would then have a further six months to agree the application, and then work could start. So the work would not start for a minimum of 18 months.
Although many disabled people are offered accommodation which meets their basic need for accessibility, there is often a requirement for other adaptations to meet the individual person's needs. To expect someone to wait a year before he or she can even apply for the adaptations is surely unacceptable. In reality it would mean that local authority accommodation is not an option for many disabled people.
Introductory tenancies are designed to deal with the small number of tenants who behave in an anti-social manner. To allow tenants to apply for disabled facilities grants during that first year is unlikely to lead to a great drain on resources by tenants who are subsequently evicted. The real drain on resources could be the additional costs—for example, keeping a disabled person in hospital because local authority accommodation cannot be adapted, so that the person must wait for private sector or housing association accommodation which could be immediately eligible for disabled facilities grants. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: It always gives me great pain when I rise to disagree with my noble friend's amendments. So I am delighted to say that this amendment seems a sensible one. However, it is not unreasonable to require that the terms under which a tenant occupies a dwelling have some degree of permanence before the tenant is able to make an application. Bearing that in mind, I should be grateful if my noble friend would withdraw his amendment on the understanding that I will give further thought to it and get back to him before Report.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that that is the most encouraging reply that any of us has received this evening. I thank my noble friend. We might possibly discuss the best way around the problem. There is again a difficulty here which I know we should both like to sort out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Disabled facilities grants: the disabled occupant]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) For the purposes of this Chapter a person is disabled if he has a physical or mental impairment which has substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities as defined under Schedule 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a current and relevant definition of disability, which is defined under legislation, is used for the disabled occupant when considering applications for disabled facilities grants. Disabled facilities grants are central to independent living for disabled people. In 1993 over £70 million was spent through local authorities on the provision of those grants. With the average grant being for £3,700 it becomes apparent that disabled facilities grants enable a large number of disabled people to live in their own homes. Those grants

1623
must be available to all disabled people who require adaptations to their homes to allow them to continue to live there.
It is important that a clear and relevant definition of a disabled occupant is used when considering applications for disabled facilities grants. It is useful if that definition has its basis in current legislation. The definitions suggested in Clause 21(2) are drawn directly from the National Assistance Act 1948. The terminology was drafted nearly 50 years ago. It is outdated. It would not merely cause offence to many disabled people; it would perpetuate negative stereotypes.
The Disability Discrimination Act which we passed last year contains a clear definition of disability. That definition focuses upon a person's ability to undertake activities rather than on the person's medical condition. Some reservations about that definition have been expressed, but it is relevant and comprehensive for the purpose of assessing disabled facilities grants. As there is a recent and relevant definition within legislation, it would be preferable to use that rather than to use an offensive definition written almost half a century ago. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: When I examined the Bill in detail and saw Clause 21 I was shocked. Some of the terminology that is used to define disability is grotesquely out of date. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it is offensive to disabled people. A better definition arises from more modem legislation; namely, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Surely such an outdated definition of disability in the Bill must be an error. It is not even helpful to the purposes of this part of the Bill.
A definition based on a person's ability to undertake activities or tasks is more appropriate than an attempt to define a medical condition with the words:
"or such other disability as may be prescribed".
I believe that that will get the Government into even more unnecessary difficulties in applying Clause 21. Therefore, in terms of doing justice to disabled people and not using a form of words that is out of date and offensive and in terms of having a more workable definition for the purposes of this part of the Bill, the amendment has great merit.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I hesitate to speak in support of my noble friend because whenever I remain silent he receives more encouraging answers from the Government. However, I wish to speak in support of the amendment because I feel strongly about the matter. Clearly, it is an advantage to use a definition already found in legislation and it is logical to use the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act that is used in relation to access to goods and services.
It is about time we got rid of the outmoded and inappropriate definition. As long ago as 1988, when we debated the Education Bill, the Government brought forward an amendment in response to one that I had withdrawn. I had half an hour to say whether or not I agreed with it. I was horrified by the definition of a disabled person and I checked that it was the definition in the 1948 Act, which uses the words "dumb", "lame"
1624
and so forth. I discovered that that was the only definition available in legislation and therefore it had to be used. Eight years on we are faced with the definition yet again. It is antediluvian, unattractive and completely outmoded.
However, we have an acceptable definition in existing legislation. If the Government will not accept the amendment I urge them to bring forward an amendment of their own in order to banish once and for all the definition in the 1948 Act. I strongly support the amendment and hope that in saying that I will not put the Minister off.
Baroness Hamwee: I share all the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and I too hope that my intervention will not cast a blight on the amendment. I raised the matter on Second Reading and in reply the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave an undertaking to look at the matter again. Following Second Reading I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I received the Government's reply this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to consult widely on it.
One of the points the Government make is that they are not aware that the definition has caused difficulties. I appreciate that the definition in the National Assistance Act 1948 is used for current grant purposes but my point is different. It is raised by groups representing disabled people. Given that that is from where the move for change comes, it is odd that the Government state that they are not aware that the old-fashioned and offensive definition in a 50 year-old Act is causing difficulties.
The Government also make the point that different grant regimes would run in parallel if the amendment were to be accepted, creating difficulty for local authorities in having to apply different definitions. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be better to update all the definitions rather than take a retrograde step. Will the Government consult the local authority associations about whether a different definition might cause such difficulties? Given that that is the view of the disability groups, I should be unhappy to leave the matter as it is. It deserves a good deal more consideration and reflection.
A point has been made to me with regard to the definition in the 1948 Act. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to reply today. Will people with progressive conditions such as non-symptomatic HIV or non-symptomatic conditions leading to blindness be covered by the definition? The important point is that the needs lead the decision and the decision-making structure, and we should not get stuck in old-fashioned terminology.
Lord Lucas: I believe that almost everything I have to say in defence of the Government's position has been argued from the opposite point of view. Our dilemma is clear. We have the choice of two definitions. One is up-to-date and agreed as part of the Disability Discrimination Act; the other is incorporated in legislation relating to all the other services which go with that in the Bill.
In drafting the Bill we decided that the best way forward would be to maintain consistency between the services involved rather than introduce a difference by

1625
updating the definition. However, I am most conscious of the points that have been put today and I shall certainly take them back to my colleagues. We will look again at our arguments in the expectation of having a further opportunity to discuss the matter on Report.
As regards the final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if conditions are non-symptomatic I doubt that they will result in the need for modifications to dwellings. Therefore, I suspect that in practice no problems will be caused. We will look at our proposal again and hope to come back on Report. Perhaps we shall return with the same arguments; I make no promises.
Lord Swinfen: I am delighted to learn that my noble friend is prepared to give the matter further consideration. He spoke about maintaining consistency. Yes, we should all like to maintain consistency. Using this Bill as the channel to bring all other legislation into line with the Disability Discrimination Act the whole lot could be brought up to date and revised. I am sure that my noble friend and his advisers can find a way around it. A little imagination can go a long way.
I and my advisers will be delighted to discuss the matter with my noble friend between now and the next stage. Having said that he will give the matter further consideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Disabled facilities grants: certificates required in case of tenant's application]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 38, leave out ("seek") and insert ("require").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Where the authority seeks such an owner's certificate from the person who at the time of application is the landlord of the property this shall not be unreasonably withheld.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will ensure that a landlord cannot unreasonably withhold from the local housing authority an owner's certificate for a property where his tenant has made an application for a disabled facilities grant.
Some landlords, especially in the private rented sector, may be reluctant or refuse to allow improvements, aids and adaptations to be carried out to their property; for example, to enable a visually impaired tenant to improve access to, orientation within and use of the facilities in the property. Others may seek to start eviction proceedings to avoid the commencement of work.
For a tenant with limited security of tenure, applying for a disabled facilities grant may therefore result in homelessness. For that reason, I feel that there is a need to introduce a provision which makes it explicit that a landlord cannot unreasonably withhold giving consent in the form of an owner's certificate. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: This amendment is designed to prevent a landlord from unreasonably withholding an owner's certificate where his tenant has made an application for a disabled facilities grant. This clause requires a tenant to enclose a tenant's certificate when applying for a grant to the local housing authority. Unless it is unreasonable in the circumstances, the application should also be accompanied by an owner's certificate provided by the landlord.
It is true that there is no current provision preventing a landlord from unreasonably withholding an owner's certificate, but I am not aware that that has ever caused particular problems for local authorities. However, if, in a particular case, a problem is caused, under Clause 23(3) a local authority has discretion to do without an owner's certificate. In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: That is an encouraging reply and, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Disabled facilities grants: purposes for which grant must or may be given]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 6, leave out ("bath, shower or washhand basin") and insert (", washhand basin and bath or shower").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 to 42. The first of these amendments attempts to redraft a part of the Bill which, in my view, is not clear. The purpose of Amendment No. 37 is to ensure that a disabled facilities grant is available to provide that the disabled person should have access to a lavatory, washhand basin and either a bath or a shower. The current wording appears to indicate that it is sufficient for a disabled person to have access to any one of a lavatory, bath/shower or washhand basin. I very much doubt that that is what the Minister intends in the drafting of the Bill.
When we discussed Amendment No. 31, the Minister made encouraging noises. Therefore, I hope that he will accept Amendment No. 39 or instead bring forward one of his own. The amendment seeks to improve soundproofing within a dwelling as many disabled people, and indeed, able bodied people, suffer stress relating to the noise of neighbours or other occupants. Additionally, some disabled people have a life style which may cause noise nuisance for other neighbours and occupants. The provision of grants for adequate soundproofing would alleviate much of that stress and lead to better communities.
Amendment No. 40 will ensure that a disabled occupant may obtain a grant to improve or install suitable lighting in his dwelling. Clause 24(1)(g) refers to:
"facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of a source of power, light…by altering the position…of access to or control of that source or by providing additional means of control".
That will enable a disabled occupant to obtain a grant to fit accessible switches and sockets. However, it does not cover the provision of additional sources of light or improving the existing lighting system in a dwelling to meet the needs of the disabled occupant. Appropriate lighting levels in the home are essential for blind and partially sighted people. That generally means providing significantly more light—around twice as much as for fully— sighted people for general circulation purposes.
The purpose of Amendment No. 41 is to ensure that disabled facilities grants are available to facilitate access and movement of the disabled person around the dwelling in order for him to care for dependent children normally resident in the dwelling and in need of such care.
Many disabled people are also parents and disabled facilities grants should be available to facilitate those parents caring for their children. I understand that in the past some local authorities have interpreted the legislation dealing with disabled facilities grants concerning access for a disabled person to care for another to refer to care for another disabled person. They have chosen not to interpret it as applying to the care of non-disabled children. Therefore, it is important that disabled facilities grants should be made available to allow disabled parents to care for their children.
Amendment No. 41 would allow disabled facilities grants to facilitate access by the disabled occupants to their gardens. Many disabled people spend a large proportion of their time at home. Many are elderly and past employment age. Only one-third of disabled people of employment age are in work. Having access to a garden therefore becomes much more important for their general and mental health and well-being. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Some years ago when I was in another place one of my constituents was an elderly woman whose husband was seriously disabled and had a progressive condition which prevented him from being able to get into the bath. That lady approached me to ask whether I could arrange with the local authority for a grant to pay for the bath to be taken out and a shower installed, because without a shower it would have been quite impossible for the couple to maintain adequate standards of hygiene.
I took up that matter with the local authority and it proved a long and difficult task. But the point of the story is to show how important it is for people with disabilities to have access to facilities which enable them to maintain decent standards of hygiene.
As Clause 24(1)(d) is worded, it refers to;
"facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of such a facility".
It is not clear to me whether we are interpreting the English language differently or whether paragraph (d) is phrased very restrictively. Perhaps the Minister will give
1628
an assurance that it is not meant to be as restrictive as it sounds. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will be as sympathetic to this amendment as he was to one or two earlier amendments.
As regards the amendment dealing with non-disabled dependent children, it may well be that a disabled parent is prevented from looking after a dependent child—the child not being disabled—without some additional features to the dwelling. It would clearly be pretty depressing for a parent who was disabled to feel that he or she could not look after a child simply because of the lack of necessary changes to the flat.
As regards gardens, it seems to me that people, especially in cities, who have the good fortune to have a garden but who are denied access to it because of disability must find that deeply frustrating. I hope that such simple changes to the Bill as envisaged by the amendments will be acceptable to the Minister.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support this group of amendments. Amendment No. 37 is especially important to those who are incontinent or paralysed with, for example, skin problems. It is a modest amendment. As I understand it, a housing association tenant would be able to apply for a wider range of adaptations to a bathroom with a special bath, bidet and so on. Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 deal with "soundproofing" and access to a garden. Housing association tenants could also apply for grants in that respect.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Amendment No. 41 is most important. It would enable a disabled parent to care for his or her non-disabled—or, indeed, disabled—child. On the one side, from the point of view of the child there would be a better relationship with the parent and, on the other, one is a better parent if one is independent and can look after one's own child. Indeed, people have confidence and self-esteem if they are able to do so.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend' s amendment, Amendment No. 37, would have the effect of enabling mandatory disabled facilities grant (DFG) to be given to provide access to a lavatory, wash handbasin, and bath or shower, or a room containing those facilities. I am not sure that the amendment provides the flexibility that we need to enable grant to be given to cover all the circumstances which may arise. It is our intention that help should be available to provide a disabled person with a lavatory, a bath and/or a shower, a wash handbasin, or any combination of those facilities.
My noble friend's amendment would provide for a bath or a shower to be provided, but not both. There may, however, be circumstances where it would be appropriate to provide a disabled facilities grant to cover both. As currently drafted, we believe that Clause 24 achieves our purpose. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend and that he will therefore be able to withdraw his amendment. I appreciate that the wording is a little difficult. I shall look at it again to ensure that it achieves exactly what we wish of it.
Amendment No. 39 provides for mandatory grant to be given to improve or install suitable soundproofing to meet a disabled occupant's needs. I know that it is

1629
important and that some people require peace and quiet in the home on account of their specific disabilities but, because of excessive noise caused by others or from general traffic, they are unable to obtain it.
However, I do not believe that there is a significant number of disabled people for whom the need to be protected from such nuisance is paramount and, therefore, that mandatory grants should be widely available for that purpose. As my noble friend will have observed, Clause 24 ensures that the principal features which are likely to be required to adapt a home for a disabled person are included as specific items for mandatory grant while those which may occur from time to time for specific persons are left to discretionary grant. Local authorities may already consider—and will be able to continue to do so—giving discretionary grant for that purpose as for other individual needs. In our view, the same argument applies to Amendment No. 40 proposing improved lighting systems. We believe that that should come under the discretionary rather than the mandatory heading.
Amendment No. 41 seeks to insert "dependent children" into the provision. Many disabled people are of course parents who have to cope with caring for, and bringing up, small children. We accept entirely therefore that grant to facilitate access and movement by a disabled person around the home in order to care for dependants living there should encompass dependent children. However, paragraph (h) of Clause 24 already achieves that aim. A "child" is a person and is therefore included in the provision. So the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 42 would allow mandatory grant to be given to provide facilities for a disabled occupant to gain access to a garden. I will take the matter away to check, in particular, if clarification is necessary to ensure that discretionary grant can be given for that purpose. We agree with my noble friend that it should be. With those assurances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may comment briefly on what the Minister said as regards care of non-disabled children. I understand that the noble Lord believes that the clause achieves what he would wish. However, it is my understanding that some local authorities have interpreted disabled facilities grants in a more restrictive way; that is to say, that the grant is intended to refer to the care of another disabled person. If local authorities are aware of the Minister's intention, that may well dispose of the matter. But there is an area of doubt. I wonder whether the Minister will accept the fact that local authorities may not always interpret the legislation in the way that he would wish.
Lord Lucas: I shall certainly take the noble Lord's point on board. However, I have it on the best authority—indeed, the written words in front of me—that what I have said is right. Children are included: all
1630
children, not just disabled children. We shall make clear that our interpretation of the wording is right in guidance to local authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, responds, I should like to express my support for a review of Clause 24(1)(d). If one takes the logic of the concern, it would be sufficient to provide a lavatory or a bath or a shower or a wash handbasin. That is clearly not what is intended. I believe that reconsideration of that part of the clause would be helpful.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may press the Minister on Amendment No. 40 which speaks of improvements to lighting systems which are necessary for disabled people. The noble Lord said that local authorities would have discretion to provide the financial provision for such facilities. I wonder whether that is really satisfactory, bearing in mind the fact that we have talked about the provisions for disabled people in other areas to enable them, for example, to carry on their normal life. Indeed, we actually say, "Yes, they should have a mandatory grant".
Adequate lighting is essential to enable partially-sighted disabled people to carry on their normal life. I should have thought that that provision came into the mandatory category rather than discretionary. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to reply immediately; perhaps he will take the matter on board and try to find a way of ensuring that such essential requirements are met on a mandatory basis.
Lord Lucas: I and my colleagues will read the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard. However, I hold to what I said. At present we consider that this is something which should be discretionary rather than mandatory.
Lord Swinfen: I should like, first, to thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this short debate. My noble friend says that he will look again at the subject of Amendment No. 37. Despite what my noble friend said, I still feel the drafting of the Bill to be extremely bad and misleading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said—and as I read the Bill—the wording means that you can have a bath or a shower or a lavatory or a wash handbasin. It seems to me that we are going back to early Victorian days. I believe that we have moved further on in that respect. The wording should be redrafted and made clear.
I take the point that sound and lighting may need special detailing for some people. I hope that my noble friend will also reconsider that aspect. Amendment No. 41 deals with the care of children. Children are most important to society. Parents should therefore have the opportunity to bring them up properly under close supervision for their own well-being and, indeed, for the parents' peace of mind. I believe that that provision should be written into the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will consider the matter again.
I refer to gardens. Some 15 years or so ago, when working as an estate agent as part of my career as a surveyor, I looked at what were then brand new houses.

1631
The only way to take a barrow-load of dung to the garden at the back of the house was by wheeling it all the way through the house. If he had steps from the back of the house down into the garden, even if he had a level access at the front a disabled occupant would be stuck in the house, and would not be able to enjoy the garden in any way. There should be proper provision from the house to all parts of the hereditament.
Like my noble friend, I shall consider again the group of amendments between now and the next stage. However, I reserve the right to come back on the amendments if I believe it necessary. If my noble friend is talking to me on other subjects, perhaps we may talk on this group too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 42 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Disabled facilities grants: approval of application]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 15, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert—
("(3A) In considering whether the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant, the local housing authority shall—

(a) co-operate with the relevant social services authority; or

(b) seek written confirmation from a general practitioner or other suitably qualified professional.

(3B) The authority mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) shall co-operate in rendering such assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: I am speaking so frequently, I feel that I should apologise to the Committee for boring it stiff.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Swinfen: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that consultation with the welfare authority is ongoing and meaningful and to validate recommendations from professionals other than occupational therapists for disabled facilities grant applications. The amendment is supported by a large number of organisations of and for disabled people and of and for elderly people.
As currently worded in the Bill, the consultation with the welfare authority may be tokenistic and may occur late in the process, leading to an inaccurate assessment being made. This amendment brings the duty to co-operate into line with Clause 164 of the Housing Bill and will ensure that the welfare authority complies with requests for assistance in assessments of disabled facilities grant applications.
Under the Housing Corporation aids and adaptations scheme, grant applications must be supported by,
"written confirmation from the appropriate Social Services Authority, a general practitioner or other suitably qualified professional where necessary and appropriate to the needs of the individual concerned".
The corporation acknowledges that the expertise of some professionals other than occupational therapists qualifies them to make informed recommendations on
1632
aids and adaptations. These professionals have up-to-date information on developments and innovations in their fields and have insight into the specific needs of their client groups.
In many authorities, the demands on occupational therapists are so great that disabled people may have to wait a considerable time before their assessment is carried out. Some people can wait for as long as two and a half years. This goes against the aims of the Government's own community care policies to encourage, empower and enable people to live independently.
Accepting professionals from other professions will ease the backlog for occupational therapists and assist the Government in pursuing a more efficient system which supports and reinforces the concept of independent living for disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: On an earlier amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, stated that "entertain" meant "consult". Here we have the use of the word "consult" in the Bill. The amendment suggests a rather better and more thorough approach to liaison between social services departments and others with the local housing authority. I believe that that is appropriate.
As drafted, the Bill states,
"shall consult the welfare authority".
That is a rather limp way of saying that there should be proper co-operation between various bodies in order to ensure that the right decisions are made about the needs for the disabled person.
I believe that the amendment improves the drafting of the Bill quite significantly, and adds a little force to what is fairly limp phrasing.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendments. As we have heard, in many cases there is a great shortage of occupational therapists, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. In many cases the disabled facilities grant is for relatively small items such as handrails for steps or bathrooms. Even then the waiting list for assessment is something like two years. A GP would be very capable of assessing whether the person required those adaptations. This would mean that there would be less time to wait for an assessment, and, by reducing the numbers on the OT waiting lists, it would speed up the process for those who really need a full OT assessment.
Apparently many local authorities are now using OT assistants to undertake assessments for aids and adaptations. Surely other qualified professionals or specialised officers from the relevant disability organisations, such as those referred to by the noble Lord, would be equally suitable as an OT assistant to undertake an assessment.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply positively. It is quite ridiculous to wait two years for assessment for handrails. Not only is it bad psychologically to lose one's independence, but one

1633
may deteriorate physically and not regain one's independence if one has to wait two years for the wherewithal to manage on one's own.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that my noble friend Lord Ferrers stated that "entertain" meant "consult". I do not believe that he did. I believe he said that "not entertaining" meant "not allowing over the threshold". I am always happy to entertain, consult or allow over the threshold the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, but we do not wish to entertain this amendment.
I share my noble friend's concern that it is important that local housing and welfare authorities work closely together in providing for the adaptation needs of disabled people seeking help through disabled facilities grants (DFG). However, I believe that the current provisions already provide for the necessary co-operation and collaboration between the respective authorities, which my noble friend's amendment seeks to achieve.
His amendment would require the housing authority to obtain written confirmation on these matters from either a GP or a qualified professional. I believe that these are matters which welfare authorities already take into account in carrying out their statutory duties to advise the local housing authority on whether proposed adaptations are necessary and appropriate.
It is normally the occupational therapist, as the qualified professional, who provides this assessment having regard to any further care needs the disabled occupant may require.
Under these current arrangements, where a welfare authority has been consulted by the housing authority, it may need to consult others before meeting its responsibility to provide that assessment. This may involve discussions with the applicant's GP, health authority staff and others who are involved in the care and support of the applicant, including agencies, voluntary bodies and anyone else providing care for the applicant such as family members.
The proposed amendment would also require social services departments to co-operate in providing such assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances. Those authorities already have continuing duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to provide assistance to disabled people in their area in arranging for adaptation works to be carried out or other facilities required to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience. Such assistance may involve liaison with the housing authority to see whether an applicant for disabled facilities grants needs further help in meeting his share of the cost of adaptations.
A question was raised on the shortage of OTs. The department is participating in an interdepartmental working group. Its terms of reference are to look at improving the effectiveness of OT service. We believe that that is a better approach to the problem. We feel that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary and I hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord Swinfen: Before I decide what to do with the amendment, can my noble friend tell me what practical
1634
steps the Government are taking to reduce the two to two-and-a-half year waiting time for assessments for adaptations?
Lord Lucas: Not at this instant, but I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Swinfen: That is a disappointing tail to a disappointing dog. However, at this hour I do not wish to press the amendment. I shall withdraw it and reserve my right to come back at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [HMO grants: the interest of the applicant in the property]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, leave out lines 27 to 29.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 58, 67, 73 and 116. This group of drafting amendments does not change the substance of the measures to any great degree.
I deal first with Amendments Nos. 116 and 67. Amendment No. 116 ensures that consents given under Clause 93 can be given for particular cases or descriptions of cases. It provides the Secretary of State with the flexibility to give the various consents in unusual or extreme cases, without changing the general policy. As a consequence of the change, Amendment No. 67 removes the same power from Clause 37, where it is specific to that clause and will therefore be unnecessary once the amendment to Clause 93 has been made.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 58 remove from Clauses 26 and 34 provisions on matters dealt with by Clause 140. Amendment No. 45 makes clear that residential occupation does not include holiday lettings and will prevent grant for houses in multiple occupation being given for holiday homes. The amendment will bring the Bill into line with the current legislation in that respect. Amendment No. 73 merely makes a minor stylistic change. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 27 [HMO grants: certificate required to accompany application]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 44, after ("(b)") insert (""residential occupation" does not include occupation for a holiday, and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [HMO grants: prior qualifying period]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: On this question, I find myself in some difficulty because it seems that, according to what the Minister said earlier, the Government will move amendments to Clause 10. I assume that the amendments will be reflected in Clause 28, which deals with qualifying periods in the same way as Clause 10.
Since the noble Earl is unable to give me anything other than King Lear-like threats that amendments will come in due course but we know not what they are. I imagine that the same position will be taken on Clause 28. If that is wrong, perhaps the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will tell me. It seems to me that the two clauses are related.
Lord Monkswell: I support the thrust of what my noble friend has said. The noble Earl made the chance remark that the Government were thinking of making provision for a reduction in the qualifying period. However, previously he seemed to suggest that there might be situations when the qualifying period could be waived. Bearing in mind the difficulty of giving the precise amendments which might be forthcoming from the Government, I hope that they will consider that there could be circumstances in which the qualifying period would be waived rather than reduced to a shorter period.
Earl Ferrers: King Lear rises again. I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, what will be in the amendments. We will bring forward an amendment to enable local authorities to disapply the three-year qualifying period in respect of Clause 28. Circumstances may arise where an ownership condition with the element of local authority discretion needs to be applied to HMO grants. For that reason, we believe that the Secretary of State should retain the appropriate powers, which include the option to vary the period by order. The Secretary of State can do so and I believe I am right in saying that local authorities cannot. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made. I believe that he is wrong, but I shall bear it in mind.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [HMO grants: purposes for which grant may be given]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Power to restrict certain landlord's applications]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 48.
Page 18, line 27, after ("is") insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 49, standing in my name, although the amendments address two different matters.
Amendment No. 48 is purely designed to elucidate the expressions in Clause 31. I should have thought that in line 27 the word "not" has been left out because, as I read the provision, it does not make much sense. However, if the Minister can assure me that it makes
1636
sense without the "not", I shall be glad to have a full explanation. The ordinary public reading the Bill may not understand why there is no negative in line 27, therefore the ordinary public will rely on Hansard in order to understand what the clause is meant to achieve.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 49 is more substantive. It relates to grants to landlords and its purpose is to ensure that such grants are permitted where they are consistent with a local housing authority's private renewal strategy which has been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Government's explanatory paper, The Future of Private Housing Renewal Programmes in England, proposed that most landlords' renovation grants and grants for houses in multiple occupation should be withdrawn and discretionary grants available only in renewal areas.
The retention of local authority powers to give grant aid to landlords in the Bill is a welcome change to those proposals. It represents government recognition that landlord grant is an important component of the powers that local authorities have to effect improvements in private rented housing.
Clause 31, however, appears to contradict that policy intention by including a wide-ranging power for the Secretary of State to restrict the use of landlord grant by order. This amendment seeks to remove such power from the Secretary of State in relation to grants which make a contribution to meeting the strategic aims of local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: If I understand Clause 31(1) correctly, I think I prefer it without "not". It seems to start from the presumption of local authority discretion which may then be reduced by the Secretary of State rather than putting the power first in the hands of the Secretary of State. However, it is for the Government to defend their wording.
I want in particular to support Amendment No. 49. Last night, as I was putting together papers for today's proceedings, I had the usual evening courier delivery from my own local authority, Richmond. It happened to include a newsletter on Richmond's private sector housing strategy. It seems that the contents of the agenda for a recent meeting, which are reported in that newsletter, go a very long way to support this amendment.
To give the Committee a flavour of what is dealt with in such a private sector housing forum, the agenda included feedback from sub-groups on an advice pack for landlords and on an accreditation scheme for landlords. It included a building society presentation on mortgage lenders' attitudes to property rental and on the implications for mortgage indemnity insurance; an item on the role of the local housing advice team; and a housing benefit update. That sort of forum is a very valuable tool, bringing together the various parties and players on the housing scene. I therefore very much support the amendment.
Lord Lucas: So far as Amendment No. 48 is concerned, I share the preference of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the way things are in the Bill. Of course it would be possible to construct the negative

1637
within the positive, and vice versa, and to use whichever version were to pass into final legislation to achieve either a positive or negative effect. But if ever we were to do anything under Clause 31 as it is at the moment, which we have no current intention of doing, we should be intending to exclude some category of area, rather than any class of landlord, from the application of the scheme. Therefore we should prefer the present wording.
Amendment No. 49 would allow any restrictions on eligibility of landlords' applications imposed by the Secretary of State in an order to be overridden where the application conformed with the local authority's private housing renewal strategy; or, if Amendment No. 48 were passed, it would do exactly the opposite.
It is not our present intention that any order should be made under Clause 31. However, were there to be any, this amendment would allow a local authority's strategy, which has no legal force, to take precedence over a decision based on primary legislation.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Are not the private housing renewal strategies of local authorities agreed with the Secretary of State? Therefore does not that strategy itself have some governmental authority?
Lord Lucas: I suppose that there are degrees and degrees. Currently we have no plans and no intention to introduce any restrictions under Clause 31. Were we to use this power and were we to phrase it in a way that overrode a local authority's strategic plan, we would do it with that intention. That is the way we would wish it to be in the legislation; namely, that in the end we would assert the primacy of Parliament over local authorities. That is stretching the imagination somewhat since we currently have no particular requirement that would fit under this clause. However, given that the clause is there, we should like it to be in its present form to give us the powers and the pattern we have requested. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I accept his comments and those of the noble Baroness on my Amendment No. 48. Reading through the Bill, it seemed slightly confusing. I always prefer to avoid double negatives where possible. But if that is the way the parliamentary draftsman wants it, that is the way the parliamentary draftsman gets it.
On Amendment No. 49, I am bound to say that I found the noble Lord's reply very much less than satisfactory. It is after all a local authority which makes a private housing renewal strategy. That strategy is agreed with the Secretary of State. The agreement therefore gives to the local authority a status which should not be overridden by order. The noble Lord said that they had no intention of doing any such thing. If they have no intention of doing any such thing, why leave a clause as such in the Bill? If the Secretary of State has the right—which he has—to disagree with the local authority's private housing
1638
renewal strategy, why would he want to issue an order overriding that strategy when he has agreed it? I simply do not understand why the noble Lord wants this clause in the Bill. Perhaps he will elucidate.
Lord Lucas: So far as I understand it, we may approve or disapprove of a local authority's strategy, but we do not write it. There may well be occasions when that strategy cuts across what we would wish to achieve. What we are specifying here is our ability to exclude various areas from the scope of this particular grant. That is something we feel we should be able to do. But I do not see how the noble Lord can say that a local authority should be granted an exemption from a direction by the Secretary of State if that is what the Secretary of State wishes to do and has taken proper power for that in legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: No, but we have a very odd situation here. As I understand it, and subject to anything that the noble Lord may say, a local housing authority's private renewal strategy is agreed with the department (with the Secretary of State). Once that has been agreed by central Government, that seems to have an authority. If, after that, the Secretary of State decides that he does not like the strategy, that is tough luck. He should have said that before he agreed it. No local authority can work with a Secretary of State saying, "Well, I'll agree your strategy, but in half an hour's time I may change my mind and issue an order under Section 31". It makes no sense.
Lord Lucas: I have to return to what I said. The strategy is evolved by the local authority. It is the authority's strategy. The Secretary of State is notified of it, but it is not something to which he gives his blessing or which requires his blessing. We are examining the Government's ability to put a restriction on what may be done as a result of that strategy. To me, that seems entirely proper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not think I shall get much further with this argument. I shall reflect on what the noble Lord said. It seems to me that once the Secretary of State, in whatever manifestation it may be, has been notified, has not objected and has essentially agreed a strategy, it is then unnecessary and indeed divisive and undesirable for the Secretary of State then to issue an order under this section, saying, "No, I disagree. I shall use the authority that I have under statute to renege on that." Nevertheless, I feel that we shall not get much further with that argument. I shall certainly read with the greatest care what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Means testing in case of application by owner-occupier or tenant]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 19, line 24, after ("a") insert ("mandatory or discretionary").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 51.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the definition of "relevant persons" for the disabled facilities grant means test for mandatory and discretionary grants excludes non-disabled owner-occupiers, their partners and dependants. The Government have indicated in their explanatory paper, The Future of Private Housing Renewal Programmes in England, that there will be a change in the means test for disabled facilities grants. Such a change does not appear on the face of the Bill. It will apparently be implemented in regulations which determine the means test for grants to be made under Clause 33(5).
We expect that the regulations will follow the general principles set out in the explanatory paper; namely, that for mandatory disabled facilities grants only the means of a disabled applicant, and parents in the case of those under 18, will be taken into account, but in the case of discretionary disabled facilities grant the current arrangements will remain.
I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to accept the amendments or at least assure us that the principle enshrined in the amendments is accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Amendment No. 50 seeks specifically to apply the means test provisions in Clause 33 to any application for either a mandatory or a discretionary disabled facilities grant. But Clause 33 does not distinguish between those classes of grant and applies equally to both. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 51 would exclude from the means test provisions owners of the dwelling who themselves are not disabled in the case of an application for a disabled facilities grant.
I have some sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment, which seeks to achieve changes to the means test, to which we are already committed. We have already announced our proposal, as the noble Lord said, to make changes to the test to require that for mandatory grant only the means of the disabled occupant and his spouse or partner will be taken into account. However, those are matters which are more appropriate for inclusion in regulations, rather than being set out in primary legislation. That enables matters concerned with the way in which the means test works to be revised from time to time, should that prove necessary, which would not be possible if the provisions were included in the primary legislation.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the fact that the Government have sympathy with Amendment No. 51, which is quite an important amendment. On the basis of the assurances that he gave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers: This may be a convenient moment to break. I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill
7.25 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Maximum Number of Judges Order 1996
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The draft order is made under Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The statutory ceiling for Lords Justices in England and Wales was increased from 29 to 32 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1994. This order will further increase that number to 35.
Your Lordships will recall that when the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1994 was debated in this House in November 1994, I was asked whether the appointment of three extra Lords Justices would be sufficient to deal with the increasing workload. I said that I thought the three extra appointments would prove sufficient but that I would keep the situation closely under review.
During the past year the situation in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal has worsened. The number of outstanding appeals rose from 1,619 to 1,833 in the legal year to September 1995. As a result, waiting times in the court have continued to lengthen. Priority is given to child cases and other appeals which need to be heard urgently, but other non-priority appeals such as from the Chancery or Queen's Bench Divisions can expect to wait 18 to 20 months for a hearing. I consider that level of delays to be unacceptable.
Measures have been introduced during the past year to help reduce the delays, but the early signs are that these alone will not solve the problems, particularly in the short term. The leave to appeal filter was extended to a further six categories of case in October 1995. Those filters help to control the number of cases proceeding to full appeal by weeding out those appeals which have no prospect of success. But leave filters also generate more applications which take up valuable judicial time. The number of applications for leave to appeal have doubled to 1,649 in the past two years and are likely to increase further as a result of the latest

1641
extension to the leave filters. Because the court is still hearing appeals lodged before the introduction of the leave filters, the benefit of fewer appeals going to full hearing will take time to work through the system.
Fixed time limits for oral arguments were introduced in July 1995 with the intention of reducing the hearing time of certain categories of appeal. The additional benefits of this initiative may be marginal because the shorter the time judges spend in court listening to arguments, the longer the time they will need to spend out of court in preparation.
Waiting times in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) have remained constant in the past twelve months and are currently 10.9 months for conviction appeals and 5.4 months for sentence appeals. However, the number of appeals being lodged are steadily increasing and to prevent waiting times increasing, it will be necessary to maintain the current level of sittings. I believe that criminal cases should take priority over other cases given that the liberty of the subject is often at stake and it will not be possible to reduce sittings in the Criminal Division to provide relief for the Civil Division.
I do not believe that I can wait to see the full benefit of the measures taken in the past 12 months before taking further action. The Master of the Rolls and I agree, however, that we cannot overcome the difficulties in the Civil Division by the repeated enlargement of the Bench. I have therefore agreed with the Master of the Rolls that the only viable long-term option is for there to be a review of the civil appellate procedure. The review will start within two months of the publication of the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf's review of the civil courts. It is expected that this report will be published in late July or August. I hope to announce the terms of reference for the review by the end of April.
The review of the appellate procedure will take time to formulate and then implement its proposals. I am anxious, however, to provide some immediate relief to help stem the rising number of outstanding appeals in the Civil Division and would therefore wish to appoint three additional Lords Justices as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I welcome the order. As the noble and learned Lord said, its object is to reduce delay and to reduce the backlog of appeals waiting to be heard in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. Justice delayed is justice denied. I understand that delay generally in waiting for civil appeals to be heard in the Court of Appeal is perhaps a little longer than the noble and learned Lord indicated—as long as 18 months to two years. That is unacceptably long. Of course the queue can be jumped in urgent cases; for example, cases concerning children or urgent public law cases. But expedition in those urgent cases pushes other appellants down the queue.
1642
Waiting time is far too long. Delay of this order means that the state is failing to provide prompt and efficient access to justice. The Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, described the problem pungently in his annual Review of the Legal Year 1994–1995. He began his review with the devastating first sentence:
"The delay in hearing certain categories of appeal in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal has reached a level which is inconsistent with the due administration of justice".
He continued,
"This predicament should come as no surprise. Reporting on the year ended 30 September 1991, when the backlog of unheard appeals stood at 1136, Lord Donaldson of Lymington"—
the predecessor of the present Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham—
"described the emerging picture as 'depressing' and warned that if changes were not made the next report was likely to be considerably more gloomy than that one. It was. By September 1992 the backlog had risen to 1195. I reported that Lord Donaldson's pessimistic prognosis had been borne out. I indicated the steps which I considered necessary if the present disquieting trends were to be reversed.
"In the following year I had to report that these disquieting trends had not been reversed. The backlog of unheard appeals had by then risen to 1399. Despite hearing more appeals, the Court had lost ground over the year, continuing the trend of previous years. Last year I reported that the year ended September 1994 had seen a sharp increase in the backlog of unheard appeals. The total by then stood at 1619. I reported:
"'The trend is disturbing because the delay in hearing appeals is already too long, and is perhaps at the upper limit of what is acceptable. If these trends continue and nothing is done, the delay will be altogether unacceptable and may be seen as a denial of justice'.
"During the year 1 October 1994–30 September 1995 the backlog of unheard appeals has risen to 1833. The Court has had to announce publicly that in certain categories of case it can only plan"—
the Master of the Rolls underlines the word "plan"—
"to hear 70% of appeals in such categories within about 18–19 months of setting down. On current projections the backlog appears set to continue steadily. These projections have been vetted by a professional statistician in the Lord Chancellor's Department. There is some reason to fear that these projections paint too favourable a picture. There is little or no reason to think that they paint too gloomy a picture. They suggest that by the year 2000 the backlog will have risen to 2234. These projections appear at page 12 of this Review".
That is a devastating description of inordinate and unacceptable delay in appeals to the Court of Appeal by the head of that court, the Master of the Rolls, who has no political axe to grind. He continued,
"Secondly, the judges of the Court have exerted constant pressure to limit oral argument in court to the bare minimum necessary for just decision-making. The oral recital of facts has been eliminated; the reading aloud of documents and authorities has been cut to the bone. Greatly increased reliance has been placed on written summaries of argument. On 26 July 1995, following detailed consultation with the Court of Appeal Users' Committee (representing judges, banisters, solicitors and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux), a Practice Statement and Practice Direction were promulgated: these were intended to streamline existing procedures and fix time limits where practicable. They do not restrict oral argument within the very tight limits familiar in American and continental courts, but are judged to represent as great a change as is currently feasible. It must also be remembered that summary oral hearings have a price: only a judge who has comprehensively mastered the relevant materials before the hearing can fairly conduct it in a summary way. The shorter the time spent in court listening to argument, the longer the time spent out of court in preparation.

1643
It is also becoming clear, as experience throughout the rest of the world demonstrates, that if judges are to prepare themselves adequately for very brief oral hearings, they must each be afforded (as at present they are not) some skilled professional assistance".
I can confirm that the Master of the Rolls, in the passage which I have just read, makes a highly significant point. It is right that the time spent on oral argument on appeal should be reduced so far as possible, consistent with no diminution in the quality of justice. The quality of justice at this level critically depends upon the interchange in oral argument between counsel and court on the key issues at stake. But if as much legal argument as possible is to be presented to the court in writing in advance of oral hearings, then two things follow which I do not doubt the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will accept.
First, more judicial time must be spent out of court in studying written submissions and also in studying the judgment of the court below, the transcript of evidence in the court below and all the issues in the case so that all three Lords Justices hearing the appeal are as informed about all the ramifications of the appeal as are counsel who put it forward and resist it. That has obvious resource implications.
Secondly, as the Master of the Rolls suggested, the Lords Justices may need the assistance of highly qualified law clerks, as in the United States system, to assist them to deal effectively with abbreviated oral hearings. That too would have resource implications and I would welcome the noble and learned Lord's comments on that specific suggestion. Those realistic suggestions of the Master of the Rolls chime with the recognition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that there are resource implications too in his plans to streamline civil justice as set out in his interim report to the noble and learned Lord, Access to Justice, in June 1995.
I welcome the order, therefore, as a step in the right direction. But I make two basic points. First, the present delays in the hearing of appeals in the Court of Appeal are unacceptable in the public interest. The delays are emphatically not the fault of the court, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord will confirm is as hardworking as any in the country; it is a consequence of judicial undermanning. It is the responsibility of government to remedy judicial undermanning. Secondly, I shall be interested to know, if three more Lords Justices are appointed under the order, what precise impact the noble and learned Lord estimates it will have on the backlog.
I repeat that I welcome the order. I am anxious not to be mean-spirited and to say "too little, too late". But we are entitled to know whether the noble and learned Lord is of the opinion that this order and the creation of three further Lords Justices are sufficient, in his judgment, to ensure the expeditious disposal of appeals without unreasonable delay.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to add a few comments to what has just been said. The delays which have been described are referred to by the Master of the Rolls as,
"serious in any court. But they are particularly serious in the Court of Appeal, which is the pivot of our legal system. The existing delays, and still more those which are projected, should be an acute source of public concern".
The gloomy report to which reference has been made comes as no surprise for this one simple reason. In the centre of page 3 of his report, the Master of the Rolls says,
"The judicial strength of the Court was increased by two in 1993, and by three during the last year. This last increase, although very welcome, was half the number which I then judged necessary to begin reducing the backlog. There was never any ground for hoping that three additional appointments would do more than slow the rate at which the backlog increased. So it has proved, despite the great contribution made by these additional Lords Justices".
Therefore, "too little, too late" is a fair comment on the observations of the Master of the Rolls. In his final conclusions—four of them in all—the Master of the Rolls in the third of them said in terms,
"If oral hearings are to be significantly shortened, the judges must receive skilled professional assistance, on a one-to-one basis, as is the practice elsewhere".
I raised that point on the last occasion of the increase of judges in the Court of Appeal and I ask yet again whether any serious thought is being given to it. What is being overlooked in thinking that the small increase in judicial manpower will assist is the fact that there was sitting last year, as retired Lords Justices, four hard-working, highly competent members of the judiciary—Sir John Megaw, Sir Michael Kerr, Sir Francis Purchas and Sir Tasker Watkins. None of those four can sit this year because—I do not criticise the legislation: I support it—having reached 75, they are no longer able to sit in a judicial capacity. So the position will be increased in difficulty by that.
The other feature that goes towards the backlogs is the increase in litigants in person, the product of cutting down on legal aid. That fouls up the lists and wastes the time of the court in trying to understand what on earth the appeal is about and then explaining it in some detail. All in all this is a very sorry picture and I beg leave to doubt whether the additional three judges will slow up what is occurring at the moment to any real degree. Their appointment will certainly provide no cure.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the Motion by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. In the course of my observations I intimated that a review of appellate procedure will take place in the near future and obviously the question of the extent to which skilled help is required for the Lords Justices will then be taken into account. As the report of the Master of the Rolls indicates, there has been some increase in the support for the judiciary in the Office of Civil Appeals during the time that I have been Lord Chancellor. But the question of whether that should become much more

1645
general is an important one which I would expect to be looked at very closely in the review to which I have referred.
It is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, that the method of working which has been developed requires more judicial time out of court than hitherto was the case. I believe that that aspect is well understood and will continue. I also entirely agree with the view that the Lord Justices in the Court of Appeal and the other members of the court—the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor when they sit there as in other parts of their jurisdiction—are extremely hard working and the amount of material of high quality turned out by the Court of Appeal during the year is extremely impressive to anyone who is given an opportunity to study it.
I think it right therefore that this order should be passed on the view that a more thorough investigation of the situation and review of the civil appellate procedure should proceed. The review by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf is primarily of civil justice at first instance and it is therefore natural that to follow that there should be an investigation of precisely what arrangements for the future should arise out of that and in other ways in relation to the Court of Appeal.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment of National Health Service Employees) (Modification) Order 1996
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March 1996 be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is to preserve the continuity of employment of doctors and dentists in the registrar grades when they move between different health service employers. By the registrar grades I mean the grades of registrar, senior registrar and specialist registrar. The new grade of specialist registrar will gradually replace the grades of registrar and senior registrar.
Registrars, like other doctors and dentists in training, provide services as well as receive training. Indeed, doctors' training in this country is a practical training. They provide a valuable part of the National Health Service.
When National Health Service trusts were established, following the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the contracts of employment of the staff working in hospitals were in general transferred to the trust. However, an exception was made for doctors and dentists in the registrar and senior registrar grades. This recognised the importance of higher specialist training and the fact that most doctors in higher specialist training would have to move
1646
between different hospitals in order to gain the necessary experience to complete their specialist training.
In practice, the health boards in Scotland are no longer involved in the provision of clinical services or indeed in personnel management for staff who work in hospitals. It is quite usual to have the situation at present that a registrar is effectively employed by a trust on behalf of the health board, which is the nominal employer. The boards, however, recognise that the employment of the doctor is effectively on behalf of the trust which is responsible for the hospital in which the doctor works. We are going to simplify this by transferring the contracts of employment of hospital registrars to trusts.
The situation in England is roughly parallel to that in Scotland. The registrar grades have been employed by the regional health authorities, which are to be abolished under the Health Authorities Act 1995. The registrar grades will have their contracts transferred to NHS trusts with effect from 1st April this year, and they will have their continuity of service protected. This date, 1st April 1996, is also the grade commissioning date for the specialist registrar grade.
Following consultations with the British Medical Association, Ministers in Scotland as well as England have given an assurance that they are willing to preserve the continuity of service of doctors and dentists in the registrar grades. In other words, a doctor should not suffer a disadvantage from having to rotate between different hospitals as part of his or her training.
Under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 the right to sue for unfair dismissal is restricted to employees who have had a minimum period of service. While we do not expect any doctor to be dismissed, the order will provide that a registrar would not lose continuity of service by virtue of having moved between different health service employers. There are certain other rights under the Act which also depend on a qualifying length of service.
The transfer of the contracts of employment will not alter the terms and conditions of service of the training grade doctors nor is it intended that it should have any adverse effect on their career prospects.
In Scotland the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education holds the funding for 100 per cent. of the basic salary costs of doctors and dentists in the training grades. We do not envisage that the transfer of the contracts of employment will in itself affect the funding arrangements.
These changes will affect about 1,000 hospital doctors in Scotland in the registrar and senior registrar grades, most of whom will, over the next year, enter the new specialist registrar grade. The creation of the single grade in higher specialist training was a key recommendation of the working group on specialist medical training otherwise known as the Calman Report.
The order will assist in making an orderly transfer of the registrar grades to trust employment. The educational supervision through the postgraduate deans and the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education will remain. I hope that the medical

1647
and dental professions will recognise the value of this further safeguard for the registrar grades. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March 1996 be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall not take up the time of the House for more than a moment or two. Perhaps I may first declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of a NHS trust. I have one question. I notice that the order comes into effect on 1st April 1996. What is the position as regards people in the medical and dental professions in the period up to 1st April 1996? Presumably, the point of continuity is that they will be prevented from suffering certain disadvantages through a break in their employment. That is a welcome feature of the proposal.
I wonder, however, whether some persons who changed their position in the period up to 1st April 1996 may not be covered by the order. If that is the case, what can be done to stop their being at a disadvantage? Obviously, no one is in favour of retrospective legislation. In this case, however, retrospection would remedy what I fear could be some significant injustice caused to people caught by the order not having been introduced earlier.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his support of certain parts of the order. It is a shame that his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton did not come to the Dispatch Box as I had hoped because I was intending to wish him a happy birthday.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as I understand it, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton is celebrating his birthday with his family, which is why I am here in his place.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's query concerning the situation up to 1st April, I am told that contracts transfer from the health boards to the trusts from 1st April 1996. I am not sure whether that completely answers the noble Lord's question. I shall read Hansard and if I can give him further information I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sheriffdoms (Alteration of Boundaries) Order 1996
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order which we are considering today proposes very minor changes to the boundaries of two Scottish sheriffdoms. The changes result from local government reorganisation in
1648
Scotland which takes effect on 1st April 1996. If approved, the order will have the effect of revoking the Sheriffdoms Reorganisation Order 1974.
The 1974 order, set up six sheriffdoms in Scotland containing 50 Sheriff Court districts. This was subsequently reduced to 49 districts with the closure of Nairn Sheriff Court in 1977. Its business was transferred to neighbouring courts. As a matter of policy, Sheriff Court district boundaries have generally followed local authority boundaries. But the introduction of the new unitary authorities in April has made it necessary to re-define the boundaries of sheriffdoms.
As a result, officials of the Scottish Courts Administration prepared proposals for possible changes. The three main criteria which they took into account were, first, that any change to sheriffdom or Sheriff Court district boundaries would not increase inconvenience to court users; indeed, the objective was to reduce inconvenience wherever possible. Secondly, any boundary changes should keep any increase in waiting periods to a minimum and not put courts in a position where they would be unable to meet the performance targets set for them by Sheriffs Principal. Thirdly, the boundaries of Sheriffdoms and Sheriff Court districts should cross as few of the new local authority boundaries as possible.
Following this review by officials and in keeping with the policies of the Government, a consultation exercise was undertaken and those with an interest in the operation of the Sheriff Courts were asked to submit views. The consultation exercise was carried out in order to help inform decisions. The Government were anxious to hear from court users before coming to any opinion on the matters to be included in the order which we are discussing today.
Responses to the consultation process were mixed. Some supported the idea of a change to bring sheriffdom and Sheriff Court boundaries fully into line with the new local authority boundaries. But serious concerns were expressed about the possibilities of increased delays in the courts. Concerns were also expressed about the pressure on courts outside Glasgow in the central belt of Scotland, which would be taking on business transferred from that area.
The Government have carefully considered all the views which were submitted. Their conclusion is that the time is not right to propose anything other than minor adjustment to sheriffdom boundaries. There are some serious issues about court provision and accommodation in some parts of the country which will require to be addressed in the future and in due course the Government may wish to bring further proposals before the House for approval. For the present, however, the belief is that the interests of court users are best addressed by making as few changes as necessary in the short term.
I turn now to the specific proposals in the order. First, it is proposed that the jurisdiction of the Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin and the Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway should be altered so as to transfer the area around Chryston from Glasgow to Airdrie Sheriff Court. Under local government

1649
reorganisation, the area of Chryston becomes part of North Lanarkshire and falls within the Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway. There were no objections to this proposal from those who were consulted.
Apart from this change affecting those two sheriffdoms, it is proposed that the boundaries of the other four sheriffdoms should remain as they are. The consultation paper also invited views on possible changes to the names of the sheriffdoms in line with the changes in local authority names. There was no consensus for change, however, and the order proposes retention of the present names.
To sum up, the order which is before your Lordships today proposes only very minor changes to the boundaries of the Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin and the Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway, respectively. The proposals will not cause inconvenience to court users and the Government are satisfied that the court authorities will cope with the changes in an effective manner. I commend the order for approval.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
8 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the fact that there has been consultation on the proposal. It is obviously a good thing that there is consent for the proposed changes. However, perhaps I may raise a point which I hope is close enough to the terms of the order for me not to be bowling a googly at the Minister, as it were. I understand that at the moment there are nearly 200 temporary sheriffs in Scotland. I am concerned about the problems posed by people who do not have a permanent post or long-term links with the locality, given that the order has made minor changes only and given that the Minister talked about continuity and the avoidance of disruption to court procedures. I wonder whether something could be done, given that that large number of temporary sheriffs does not represent continuity. That seems to me to be a somewhat less than happy position.
Judging from the noble Earl's face, that point was not covered in his briefing papers, so I must apologise for raising it, but the point has been put to me in connection with the workings of the sheriff courts in Scotland. If I may repeat myself a little, given that the Minister was concerned about continuity and that the changes should not cause disruption, I wonder whether this other factor about the workings of the sheriff courts in Scotland will provide less than continuity. I merely raise that point while welcoming the fact that there has been consultation about the order.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and for his support for the order. I am told that temporary sheriffs are used to provide cover for permanent sheriffs mainly when the permanent sheriffs are not available to act themselves. They are used purely on a temporary basis. I too am
1650
pleased that there was consultation and that the Government took note of what was said. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.25 p.m.]

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 33.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 20, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) make provision for the deduction of—

(i) the gross amount of any sums paid as interest (including interest on a mortgage) in respect of which relief is given under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("the Taxes Act") in respect of a loan to the person, his spouse or partner;

(ii) half of the gross amount of any premium payable under a policy of life insurance in respect of which relief is given under section 266 of the Taxes Act (life policy and certain other premiums) in the relevant year; and

(iii) the gross amount of any other premium or sum in respect of which relief is given under sections 266, 273, 619 or 639 of the Taxes Act in the relevant year;

from the gross income of the person or his spouse or partner for the purposes of determining income under this section.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 52, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 59 and 60.
The purpose of Amendment No. 52 is to ensure that the means test calculation, in which we are now engaged, takes into account mortgage interest payments and payments of other sums on which relief is given under the income tax Acts. The amendment requires the deduction of mortgage interest payments and other tax deductible expenses from the calculation of an applicant's income for means test purposes. We believe that this is a fair assessment of income that is realistically available to fund repairs to private housing, as it applies the means test only to that part of the applicant's income that is genuinely disposable, that is, surplus to the essential expenses of a householder.
Amendment No. 54 is a government amendment. Therefore, I will wait to hear what the Government say about it.
Amendment No. 55 is intended to ensure that the means test for the main grants is uprated by the same amount and at the same time as corresponding changes to the housing benefit regulations. The amendment will prevent any delay in uprating the means test for grant purposes to reflect changes in the housing benefit regulations and in particular increases in allowances and premiums to reflect inflation.
Amendment No. 59 is a government amendment. I will wait to hear what the noble Lord has to say about it.
Amendment No. 60 is designed to ensure that local authorities have the power to use the means test for renovation grant for landlords where that is considered appropriate. Clause 34 provides that the determination of the amount of grant to be paid in relation to a landlord's application will be determined by the local authority having regard to such matters as the Secretary of State may direct. It is unclear how the Secretary of State intends to use his powers under that clause. Although officials have stated that the intention is to allow local authorities complete discretion, the amendment seeks to put it beyond doubt in one important respect. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I hope that I may be able to enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to some extent at least on the government amendments. Amendment No. 52, moved by the noble Lord, would require an applicant's mortgage interest and other tax deductible payments to be disregarded in the means test regulations made under this clause. Our view is that the amount of mortgage an individual takes out, or the amount he pays towards life insurance and other premiums for which he can reclaim tax paid, is a matter of personal choice, and as such we see no case for those amounts to feature in the renovation grant means test.
To make such provision would, in our view, encourage individuals to take out larger commitments because, to do so would result in a higher level of grant. Similarly, I do not see why the amount of life insurance individuals pay, as opposed to their other outgoings, should have a bearing on the amount they receive.
We do not ignore housing costs in the means test, and we believe that the existing system under which allowances are made for the needs of the household, some of which take account of a person's disability or old age, is fairer as it treats all applicants in the same way. That ensures that they receive grant at a similar level.
The two government amendments (Amendments Nos. 54 and 59) provide for regulations under Clauses 33 and 34 to make provision enabling local authorities to obtain information from third parties in connection with determining grant applications by owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords under Chapter 1.
The current regulations for means testing owner-occupiers and tenants replicate to a large extent, the regulations for housing benefit. However, there is no power in Part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 enabling the Secretary of State to obtain or verify information supplied in support of applications for grant.
Those amendments would help to streamline the application process by enabling authorities quickly to obtain or check the details of applicants' circumstances rather than having to ask the applicant to get such details from a third party. These powers would also enable authorities to make checks in certain cases for the purposes of detecting fraud or other abuse of the system.
1652
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 55, which would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual uprating order increasing the allowances and premiums covered in the test, is unnecessary and would be restrictive where flexibility is required. The Secretary of State makes provision each year to uprate those figures in line with increases made in the regulations governing housing benefit upon which the means test is based.
That uprating is normally carried out in April each year to coincide with changes to those regulations and is made through regulations to amend these amounts. However, it is normal practice for these regulations to include a wide range of other changes to the grants means test to maintain consistency with the provisions for housing benefit which is subject to constant change.
The power in Clause 33 provides a suitable method for the annual uprating of those amounts while providing the flexibility to include in the regulations other necessary changes, and therefore this amendment is unnecessary.
The noble Lord's last amendment in this group (Amendment No. 60) seeks to provide for landlords to be means tested in the same way as owner-occupiers and tenants. The present test of resources for landlords is widely regarded as deficient because it takes no account at all of the true wealth of a landlord, including the income he receives from other properties let. It therefore fails to meet the principal objective of the test, which is to distinguish between wealthy and less wealthy landlords.
There is, however, no simple way of distinguishing in the legislation between those landlords deserving of grant and those operating as a business for whom the cost of repairs and improvements to their properties should be part of the normal overheads of the business.
It is important also that any test designed to look at the wealth of a landlord, which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve, should offer the scope or protection needed to prevent a landlord from disguising his true assets. We believe that that cannot be prescribed so as to take account of all the various circumstances and arrangements entered into for the purpose of securing maximum grant.
We have therefore concluded that the current statutory provisions for determining grant to landlords should be removed and that local authorities should be given discretionary powers to determine the level of grant in each case as well as whether grant should be given at all. Local authorities are best placed to make such judgments based on local knowledge of landlords in their area. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. When the time comes, I shall move ours.
Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether I could query the Minister's response to the first amendment in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I must apologise to the Committee. I should declare an interest as someone who has submitted an application for a home improvement grant. I should have registered that interest on the Floor of the Chamber at the beginning of this Committee stage.

1653
Perhaps I may return to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 52. He suggested that the reason for not including mortgage interest payments in the means assessment is that it would encourage people to over-extend themselves or take out a large mortgage on a property and then obtain benefit from a home improvement grant.
Perhaps we can consider two cases. The first is where a person may not have a large amount of capital and therefore has to take out a mortgage to buy a property. The second is where a person has sufficient capital not to require a mortgage. Those two people have the same income. Effectively what the Government are saying is that the home improvement grant will be granted to the person with the greatest capital and least mortgage and not to the person with the high mortgage and less capital. Is that what the Government wish to see?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out certain discrepancies in the Government's position. The wording of the items to be deducted in Amendment No. 52 is taken from the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 regarding the assessment of parental contributions towards a student grant. The amendment would therefore align the means test for housing grants with that for education grants. The amendment would also align the housing grant means test with income support regulations which still recognise that on a long-term basis mortgage interest payments are part of a household's essential expenditure. If those are regarded as part of essential expenditure in education (student grants) and income support, why not in the Bill?
Lord Lucas: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, my understanding is that we take full account of capital in terms of the interest obtained upon it. However, I am conscious that the questions that he and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked take me beyond my brief in terms of the intricacies of this and other related means tests. If noble Lords will allow, I should prefer to reply to them in detail after this debate rather than further to take up the Committee's time by running backwards and forwards to try to find the right answer to satisfy a perspicacious and knowledgeable team opposite.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, as always. Perhaps he will look at the matter in the light of what I have said and the expert evidence which I have in front of me. I look forward to government amendments, perhaps on Report, or, if necessary, a letter. I always like receiving letters from the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 20, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of an application for a disabled facilities grant regulations must, in particular—
1654

(a) make provision for account to be taken only of the income and assets of the disabled occupant himself and his parents if he is living with them and he is under 18; and

(b) make provision for account to be taken of the needs and outgoings of the disabled occupant himself and any person who is dependent on him, including the additional costs incurred because of having a disability.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities take into account only the income of the disabled occupant and his parents if he is under 18 and living with them when considering a disabled facilities grant. It is also intended to ensure that local authorities take into account the needs and outgoings of the disabled occupant and any person who is dependent on him.
Disabled facilities grants are intended to benefit disabled people and to facilitate their use of their home, allowing them to live as independently as possible. In many cases, that reduces the need for personal assistance and reduces the cost of care. Works carried out on the home for the disabled occupant are not for the benefit of other members of the disabled person's household. The legislation states that the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant. The requirement that the income of other non-disabled people living in the same home should be taken into account when assessing eligibility for the grant is unjust. It implies that the other non-disabled people living in the same home should contribute from their income to the cost of the works when those works are not for their benefit.
The original consultation document, issued in July last year by the Department of the Environment and entitled The Future of Private Housing Renewals Programmes, suggested a change to the means tests. It stated that as regards the mandatory disabled facilities grants only the means of the disabled applicant (and parents in the case of those under 18) will be taken into account and that the means of spouses and partners will be taken into account. That is clearly different from proposals in the Bill which allow for regulations to take account of the income of the disabled occupant's spouse, any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him.
The current proposals could lead to the income of anyone living in the household being taken into account, including lodgers, friends, relatives and parents of disabled adults or children who have an income. Clearly, that is against the intention of the consultation paper. I understand that recently RADAR was contacted by a family in which the adult son had become a wheelchair user following an accident. He had moved in with his parents as he could not live independently but their home required adapting. His father's income was taken into account for the means test and, because the contribution was high, the family could not afford the adaptations and they were unlikely to be undertaken.
To include a requirement of financial responsibility of partners, parents or others living in the home is unjust and discriminatory. It places an unequal financial responsibility by virtue of relationship to, or simply living under the same roof as, a disabled person. It is

1655
important that only the income of the disabled person is included in any grant calculations and that remit of the regulations is limited in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has argued the case most cogently. The test is: who benefits from the adaptations which might be carried out? If the sole beneficiary is the disabled person, as is almost certainly the case in the instances mentioned, it is not right that the income of other persons in the household should be taken into account. The changes are being made only to help one person; that is the disabled person.
The amendment is also intended to ensure that all the needs and outgoings of the disabled occupant and of any person dependent on him are taken into account in making the assessment as regards the costs which must be incurred. The amendment is sensible and modest and I fully support it.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I have sympathy with the intention of the first part of my noble friend's amendment. As I stated, we have announced proposals for relaxing the means test for mandatory grant and shall therefore give consideration to the detailed operation of the means test when we come to prepare the regulations later in the year.
As regards the second part of the amendment, I do not believe that we should restrict the regulations in the way proposed. The amendment provides that a disabled person's outgoings shall be taken into account in addition to his needs. However, the amount of the person's outgoings is to some extent a matter of personal choice. As such, we see no case for those amounts to feature in the means test. However, the means test does not ignore the fact that there are demands on a person's income. Therefore, we propose to continue to provide in the regulations for the award of various personal allowances and premiums. Those are made in recognition of the demands on household income and also take into account the fact that a person is disabled. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I am not entirely reassured by my noble friend's answer. However, I shall read carefully what he said and reserve the right to come back at the next stage of the Bill.
As regards outgoings, often disabled people have considerable expenses which are incurred purely because of their disability. My noble friend shrugs his shoulders. If he is to take part in the Bill dealing with disability he ought to learn a little about it. Considerable costs are often incurred as a result of disability; for instance, additional costs of transport, special clothing, heating and sometimes lighting. There are all kinds of items. I am sure that my noble friend did not mean to denigrate what I was saying in respect of additional costs for disabled people. He shakes his head and I take that as reassurance. However, those costs must be properly considered.
1656
I do not intend to press the amendment tonight but I wish to consider what my noble friend said and his reaction to what I said. I may come back at a later stage—
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, will he consider relating the outgoings more explicitly to needs? As the second paragraph of his amendment is drawn, the outgoings could be wide and I suspect that that is not what is intended. I had not read the proposal in that light until the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, interpreted it more widely. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, may care to relate the terms more closely in a later amendment.
Lord Lucas: I echo what the noble Baroness says. I hope that that was the burden of what I said to my noble friend. I wish to reassure him that the twitch of my shoulders was merely a twitch and nothing to do with what he was saying.
Lord Swinfen: Of course, the outgoings are not intended to take account of a champagne and caviar lifestyle. They are intended to take account of the genuine needs caused by a person's disability. If my amendment needs redrafting I shall be happy to take that on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 20, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Determination of amount of grant in case of landlord's application]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("an owner's") and insert ("a landlord's").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. These two government amendments are drafting amendments intended to clarify the provisions of Clause 34 relating to the determination of grants to landlords. The amendments distinguish landlords' applications for disabled facilities grants from an owner-occupier's application and correct an error made at the drafting stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 20, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to a landlord's application for a disabled facilities grant is to an owner's application in respect of works to a dwelling which is or is intended to be let, or to the common parts of a building in which a flat is or is intended to be let.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 20, leave out lines 23 to 25.
Page 20, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to specify maximum amount of grant]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("except for a grant in respect of the purposes in section 24(1) (mandatory disabled facilities grant).").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. The purpose of these two amendments is to remove the ceiling on the maximum amount of a disabled facilities grant in order to allow grants for the full amount for disabled people who require considerable adaptations to allow them to continue living in their own homes.
Disabled facilities grants are the main source of funding for disabled people who require adaptations to enable them to continue in their own homes. The majority—that is, 60 per cent. or thereabouts—of disabled facilities grants are awarded to owner-occupiers but council and private tenants are also eligible for those grants. The grants are means-tested and there is a limit on the grant.
In 1993 I understand that over £70 million was spent through local authorities on provision of disabled facilities grants with the average grant being £3,700. It becomes apparent that the grants are enabling a very large number of disabled people to continue to live in their own homes. A very small number of those grants are for amounts of £20,000, which is the current upper limit. In 1993, that was about 2 per cent.
However, those grants are for people who require considerable adaptations to continue to live in their own homes. In some areas, social service authorities provide some help with meeting costs over £20,000 but that support is patchy and often authorities offer only a loan. The people who require those larger disabled facilities grants are a very small group for whom the assessment procedure has clearly indicated that they require those adaptations and that there are no other alternatives. Therefore, the disabled facilities grant system should support fully those people and meet all the costs.
The proposed provision of discretionary grants above a certain limit is not satisfactory as that again will lead to different decisions in different areas and a variable decision for disabled people. Very few authorities award discretionary grants and that would leave a small group of disabled people who cannot meet the additional costs and are therefore unable to live in their own homes. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Earlier today the Minister chided me for not having enough confidence in the ability of local authorities to exercise their discretion in a sensible
1658
manner. I hope that he will therefore be very sympathetic to this particular amendment because we are saying in this amendment that there should be no constraint on local authorities' ability to assess what grant should be paid under the heading of a disabled facilities grant. If the amendment is passed, a local authority will be able to exercise fully its discretion.
As the Bill stands, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether he wishes to make an order specifying a maximum amount. We do not know what that is to be. Therefore, it seems to me that the choice is between allowing the Secretary of State to set a maximum or allowing a local authority to decide what is appropriate in terms of the needs of a disabled person. I hope that the Minister will think again and decide in favour of local authorities exercising their discretion in the interests of disabled people.
Lord Lucas: And so I will, by proposing that the Bill stays exactly as it is. My noble friend's amendment would remove the discretion from local authorities and make the grants mandatory whereas the current position is that grants over £20,000 are discretionary, and in those cases the decisions are for the local authorities.
Statistics gathered from local housing authorities have shown that the adaptations needed by most disabled applicants can be carried out well within the current limit, with the average grant around £4,000, well below the present limit on mandatory disabled facilities grant. For the comfort of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I can say that it is not intended that any lesser amount should be specified in an order under this clause.
I accept that most adaptations needed to the home of a disabled person are unlikely to add to the value of the property and the statistics show that it should be possible for those adaptations to be carried out within the grant limit.
However, I recognise that there will be cases where more extensive works are essential for the disabled person to remain living in his home or to enable him to move into the home of relatives, who will provide the care he needs. That is why subsection (3), which Amendment No. 62 seeks to remove, provides for the order to allow an amount additional to the grant limit to be paid, where the local authority considers that appropriate.
Grant resources, unfortunately, are finite. A great many adaptations at the average grant of £4,000 could be carried out for the cost of just a few grants in excess of the proposed limit. Therefore, it is necessary to think very carefully about the benefits of carrying out such works and whether there is any other way of meeting the disabled person's needs for a lesser amount.
Local housing authorities must have discretion to consider, together with social services departments, whether the works proposed in the grant application are necessarily the only or even the best option available to meet the needs of the disabled person. That means that the local authority must also have the power to exceed the limit where it is satisfied that that is necessary.
Our proposals give the applicant a full mandatory entitlement to assistance, yet retain some control on the level of grant with the local housing and social services

1659
authority. We believe that local authorities will be well able to exercise their discretion to make sure that those disabled people who really need grants in excess of £20,000 are able to access the necessary funds. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may press the Minister further as regards his explanation. It seems to me that, given the small percentage of grant applications which would be over the £20,000 limit, the department should have some information about those grants. What is the general reason for grant applications of that order of magnitude? Is it because people living in stately homes require facilities to be able to get to the gun room or the east wing or the west wing and so on; or is it because the disability of the applicant is so severe and special that he needs special and expensive provision?
If the latter is the case, it may be that if the grant is not forthcoming, that disabled person will fall to be supported by public funds in some other way, perhaps as a chronic invalid in hospital needing some form of high-intensive care. That might cost the state quite a lot more than making the necessary adaptations to his home and may well cost more than £20,000.
I appreciate that the Minister may not have thought of that particular angle, but I am sure that the department and his officials will have some information regarding those very large sums of money which are being applied for. If he does not have the information this evening, perhaps he will provide those of us who have contributed to the debate with that information before Report stage.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas: If I can, I shall certainly provide the noble Lord with that information. However, I am clear that it applies where individuals have particular needs which are expensive to meet but which need to be met. We are confident that local authorities can be trusted with the discretion that we believe they should have to deal with those particularly expensive cases in the best way. That is why we support the Bill as it is and not my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may suggest that, if there is a choice between the local authority exercising discretion and spending more money than the £20,000 and the local health authority providing the facilities to enable the disabled person to carry on his or her existence, then, bearing in mind the local authority's fiduciary duty to council tax payers, it might quite reasonably take the view that the health authority should pick up the tab rather than the local authority.
Lord Lucas: That is not our experience of local authorities.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. If it is found to be necessary to build on an extension to a home to provide either a room in which to sleep at the entrance level or a room with a bath or shower and washhand basin and
1660
a lavatory, the building cost could quite easily run over £20,000; indeed, there is no great difficulty in that respect. However, that will not happen in many cases.
I believe that my noble friend should look most carefully at the comparison regarding the expenditure of providing adaptations and the cost of keeping a disabled person in a residential home; or, indeed, in hospital. If a person has to be kept in a residential home rather than in his home, then someone else will probably have to be kept in hospital rather than in the residential home. That is even more expensive. However, I shall consider my noble friend's response and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Decision and notification]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 21, line 41, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. The purpose of the amendments is to give a local housing authority up to three months rather than the proposed six months to notify an applicant for grant as to whether the application has been approved or refused. Adaptations are often vital to enable many disabled people to remain living in their own homes. The main route to them is through the disabled facilities grant system. Without accessible housing, neither community care nor independent living for disabled people is possible. The provision of suitable accommodation is of central importance.
The present system of DFGs has some serious drawbacks. One of the most frequently encountered problems is the long delay in obtaining agreement for the grant and then further delays while the work is undertaken. Local housing authorities currently have up to six months to decide whether to approve or refuse an application. In many cases it is normal practice routinely to take the full six months. The work itself then has to be arranged and can take some time to complete. Delays of a year from requesting an assessment to work starting are very common. That delay presents serious problems for disabled people who do not have accessible accommodation.
In particular, such delays have a most serious effect on people waiting to be discharged from hospital who require work to their accommodation before they can do so. Those individuals can be left for long periods of time in hospital when there is no need for it. It is not only frustrating for such people and their families but is also an inappropriate use of hospital beds and most expensive.
For people awaiting adaptations who are living in inaccessible accommodation, the delays also present problems. Many people will not be able to get in and out of their homes or will not have access to lavatories or bathrooms. In some cases they will he living in unsafe situations. That will often lead to increased care requirements, including support from social services.
The additional costs of someone waiting in hospital for a disabled facilities grant to be agreed and adaptations undertaken are immense. For example, Department of Health statistics for the cost of a geriatric bed—such beds are very often used by severely physically disabled people—show a cost of £791 and a few pence per week. That means that, if the person remains in hospital only because his or her accommodation requires adaptations and he or she is waiting for a disabled facilities grant application under the current system, it will cost £20,577 to keep that person in hospital while the application is processed. By reducing from six to three months the time that local authorities can take to process such applications, there would be a saving in excess of £10,000.
Although it is not possible to remove all the waiting time for disabled facilities grants, the period should at least be kept to a minimum. A time of three months should be more than adequate for any local housing authority to agree an application. Some local authorities which currently try to minimise delays decide on DFGs within weeks rather than months. Ensuring that the local housing authority decision is taken within a reasonable time cuts down considerably on the delays and has a tremendous effect on the speed with which the adaptations can be undertaken, thus greatly benefiting the disabled person requiring accessible accommodation. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: When legislation refers to a period "not later than six months", there is a danger that a local authority will consider the provision and that six months will become the norm rather than an exceptionally long period.
There seem to be two arguments as to why one should keep to a minimum the length of time that people have to wait. First, when a person has to face disability—the condition may become worse fairly rapidly—it is surely right that he should have the benefit of having any improvements or changes to his home carried out as quickly as possible. Otherwise the situation for a disabled person may become well nigh intolerable.
Secondly, money might be saved, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made clear, if such improvements were carried out quickly; otherwise the disabled person might have to stay longer in hospital or in some other form of care—a fairly costly business. In many instances, if the disabled person can resume living in his or her home as quickly as possible, the net benefit may well be significant.
Faced with those compelling arguments, I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments sympathetically.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may add this. Inadvertently I did not speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which are grouped with Amendment No. 63. The two amendments place a duty on local authorities to commence payment of a grant immediately upon completion of the works, and remove the delay of 12 months proposed for the payment of disabled facilities grants.
1662
Adaptations can commonly take up to three years from the date of application to be completed. There may be delays in assessment and processing of grant applications followed by lengthy building works. Any further delay caused by allowing local authorities to delay payment for 12 months from the date of application will exacerbate an already intolerable situation for disabled people and their carers.
Lord Lucas: I am sad to say that we disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on Amendment No. 63. We believe that in the worst cases a local authority could quite reasonably require six months to decide on an application. The Bill places a duty on authorities to notify an applicant of their determination as soon as reasonably practicable. The period of six months is, therefore, the maximum amount of time allowed. It should not be the norm. As my noble friend pointed out, it is often by no means the norm.
Under the new system, with the pressures off the remainder of the monetary grant system, we believe that there is no reason why most applications should be delayed anything like as long as six months.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would require authorities to pay grant or, if instalments have been paid, the balance, immediately after the completion of the eligible works. As regards the payment of grant generally, we believe that authorities must have some flexibility over this, and Clause 38 as drafted gives them that flexibility. My noble friend's amendments would mean that authorities' ability to manage their financial resources would be greatly reduced, and I must make it clear that we do not wish to go down that road. There are also practical implications to the introduction of the term "immediately" which I am sure my noble friend will appreciate if he allows his imagination to run on for a while.
I appreciate that what I have said is not particularly encouraging to my noble friend. Nonetheless, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I did not intervene when the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was speaking to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 because I had the nave presumption that the Government would accept them. I am absolutely amazed to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In effect, we are hearing the Heseltine syndrome from the Government. Noble Lords will remember an amazing recent public fuss when it transpired that in his youth the right honourable Mr. Heseltine had made his money by not paying his bills on time. What the Government are saying in effect is that it is all right for local authorities not to pay monies due to grant applicants when they are due. They can delay payment in order to gain some financial benefit to themselves. If we consider the implications, by definition—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord forgive my intervening? We do not want to spend too long on the matter. My noble friend Lord Lucas has already said that a local authority is under an obligation to pay the

1663
money as soon as it reasonably can. There is, therefore, no loophole for it to delay payment in order to gain interest.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister said that if the grant application is given approval, there is a duty to notify as soon as reasonably practicable, not that the local authorities should pay the grant due as soon as reasonably practicable. That was my understanding.
It is not only the grant applicants whom we have to consider, but those who will do the work. Most of the adaptations will be undertaken by small businessmen. Are the Government saying that payment to those small businessmen should be delayed by local authorities through late payment to grant applicants? I am not sure that the Government really mean that. I ask them to reconsider the implications of the amendment.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is right in part of what he says. It is the determination of the application which must not be unreasonably delayed. When, and if, a grant is granted, the local authority then has the ability to say when it will pay that grant. It has the flexibility to decide on it within 12 months of the date of the application. It has the ability to manage its cash flow by saying when the grant will be available. We recognise that on occasions it may be an inconvenience to the disabled person. As regards inconvenience we have to strike a balance between the disabled person and the local authority, and we believe that we have struck the right balance. It will not inconvenience local traders because the disabled person will know when the grant is coming and can schedule his works accordingly. It is not an open invitation to the local authority to delay payment until it happens to feel like it. It must say when the payment will be made.
Lord Swinfen: The last part of what my noble friend said is encouraging in that the local authority will have to say when the grant will be made. To go back further, I understand the difficulty that my noble friend has with the word "immediately". The local authority must be satisfied that the work has been properly carried out in accordance with building regulations and everything else. It may need time to make an inspection. My noble friend will bear in mind that builders reserve the right to alter their estimates, the figures upon which the grant is assessed. If everything is delayed too long, the estimates will change and probably increase. They will almost certainly not go down. There is also the question of whether a disabled person can raise the funds to have the work carried out as soon as he needs it, rather than having to wait up to 12 months for the funds to arrive to enable him to have the work carried out. That may take another few weeks or months. I shall read what my noble friend said, but I have a feeling that I shall return to this later in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 21, line 43, at end insert—
1664
("( ) If, notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the local housing authority fails to give the required notice within the six months therein mentioned, the applicant may apply to any county court for an order requiring such notice to be given within 7 days of the order or such longer period as the court may find fit.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 64, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68. The amendments involve the provisions of the Bill concerning notification and decision making. Amendment No. 64 proposes to insert the new subsection into Clause 37 at page 21, line 43. It seeks to ensure that a grant applicant has an enforceable right to a decision upon the application. We have just debated the provision requiring local authorities to give a decision within a period, but there is no sanction if the period is exceeded. It would be possible for an applicant to apply to the High Court for a judicial review, but it requires knowledge and funds which, probably by definition, are not available. It would add to the burden on authorities and the courts in a way which would be, if not unacceptable, certainly not desirable. The amendment provides for a local county court to grant an order after the six months—if that is the period that is chosen for the local authority to make a decision—requiring the authority to determine the application promptly, if it has not been determined. It gives the power to award compensation to an applicant who has not been able to put in hand remedial works.
Amendment No. 65 refers to the provision in the Bill dealing with an "estimated expense". An applicant must submit at least two estimates from different contractors for the cost of carrying out works, but a local housing authority can choose to reject the estimates and fix the expenses at less than the contractor's estimates. If that is done, the applicant should know on what basis it was done. If applicants are not given the information, there is always the danger that the local housing authority's standards will slide and the authority will arrive at an "estimated expense", to use the term in the Bill, which does not reflect the true cost of carrying out the work. Fairness dictates that the applicant should see the reason for the decision. It is only the applicant who will have the information which might challenge the view taken by the local authority.
Amendment No. 66 would require the local housing authority to notify an applicant of the reasons for refusal of an application. It is to encourage fair administration, and so discourage arbitrary and ill-considered decisions. Natural justice requires that an applicant should be heard if that applicant disagrees with decisions. It would be difficult for an applicant to challenge a decision without knowing the reasons for the refusal.
Finally, Amendment No. 68 would provide a right of review to an applicant to give him the opportunity to resolve a misunderstanding in the way set out in the amendment. I suggest that a statutory right of review would help avoid recourse to the courts by way of judicial review. It is desirable that, where a decision is made against the interests of an applicant, he should have the fullest opportunity to address relevant matters. That would go towards the quality of the

1665
decision-making. I propose a 28-day time limit in order that the efficiency of the decision-making process is not interfered with overly. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Turning first to Amendment No. 64, I do not believe it would be desirable to involve the county court in what should be a matter of good management within the local authority. The move to a discretionary grant regime should ensure that local authorities have greater control of the grant programme and allow them to ensure that decisions, either approvals or refusals, are made promptly.
While the current pressure for mandatory grant has concentrated attention on the six months' determination period, evidence of those authorities that are not currently subject to mandatory grant pressures suggests that authorities often determine grants in a matter of weeks.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 suggest that a duty be placed on the local authority to provide more information on either how the cost of the grant works is arrived at, or why a grant is refused. While I would hope that this kind of information was commonly made available to grant applicants by local authorities, I will take these points away and reflect further on whether specific mention of them should be made.
Amendment No. 68 seeks to introduce what can only be described as "a second bite of the cherry" for those refused a grant. I believe there is an obligation on the local authority to give due weight to all grant applications submitted. In deciding to refuse a grant, an authority will have had to give serious consideration as to how approval or refusal of the application would meet the local strategy. To leave authorities open to requests to reconsider such decisions would seem unnecessary and would add further to the burden on the local authority when, to our mind, judicial review would be the right next step rather than review by the local authority.
I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, particularly in the light of the fact that she has had some success.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the middle of that sandwich. Like him, I like to think that all local authorities will behave reasonably, efficiently and transparently. I proposed the amendments because, sadly, I fear not quite all of them will. Nevertheless, I shall reflect on the Minister's remarks on the bread around the outside of the sandwich, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 22, line 29, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Payment of grants: general]:
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Delayed payment of mandatory grant]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("specified by order of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This amendment changes into an order-making power the power contained in Clause 39(2), under which the Secretary of State may specify the period by which an authority may delay the payment of disabled facilities grant. We recognise that the Committee is concerned about the use of delegated powers and our amendment brings this power under parliamentary control.
The amendment is grouped with Clause 39 stand part but I should let other Members of the Committee speak on that Motion first. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I assume that we are speaking on Clause 39 stand part as well as Amendment No. 71. As regards Amendment No. 71, I welcome the fact that there will be parliamentary control over the time period; but I find it difficult to understand the thinking behind this matter altogether. I am clear that as regards Clause 39(1) there may be a case for delaying the payment of a grant in order that it coincides with the time that the building work is being carried out and paid for. I assume that that is the reason for Clause 39(1).
As regards the maximum 12-month delay, I do not understand the thinking behind it at all, unless it has something to do with the building work being completed and the money being paid 12 months after the work has been finished. Frankly, I am not clear about its purpose. In any case, I should like some assurance that there is no intention to make the 12-month period longer—it may now be specified by order as longer or shorter—and that, if anything, one would shorten the period to below 12 months.
The whole clause has within it yet another possibility for delay in proceeding with matters. We have discussed it on more than one occasion recently. I hope that there will be no further reason for disabled people not to have the work done and paid for as quickly as possible.
Baroness Hamwee: I join the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in questioning Clause 39, particularly in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the set of amendments that I moved a moment ago. It seems a little inconsistent to show such trust in local authorities one minute and the next minute to have such a power with regard to delay.
I am also concerned in case there might be a link with funding the grants. One can see that it might be in the Government's interests to ensure that payment is spread, given the link between government grant to local authorities and local authorities meeting grant applications. I am sure that there is nothing so devious in the Government's mind, but perhaps they could say so.
Lord Lucas: Under Section 117 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, where an authority has approved a grant application it must pay the grant—in whole or by instalments—once the works have been completed to the satisfaction of the local authority and suitable invoices have been provided.
That means that authorities have little scope to manage their financial resources by prioritising cases where mandatory grant is an issue.
The proposal will not mean that an applicant will necessarily have to wail longer to receive adaptations. Under the grant arrangements an applicant may have to wait up to six months for his application to be approved, following which he has a further 12 months in which to carry out the works. That means that he may have to wait up to 18 months to receive adaptations. Our proposal envisages that an applicant will not be required to wait longer than 12 months after he makes his application.
We believe that our proposals will help authorities in their financial management by giving them the discretion to withhold payment of mandatory disabled facilities grants for up to 12 months after the date of the application. That would only apply if the authority, when giving the applicant notice of its decision on the application, informed the applicant of an earliest date for payment.
We brought forward the proposal to provide authorities with an additional administrative tool to enable them to schedule payments more efficiently—including between financial years where necessary—and thus to exert some control over mandatory grant expenditure.
In recognition of the Committee's concerns about inappropriate delegated powers, we introduced a government amendment which brings under parliamentary scrutiny the Secretary of State's power to vary the 12-month limit. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the reassurance for which he asks; that is, that we have no present plans to change the 12-month limit. We envisage that authorities should only need to use the measure sparingly and in exceptional cases. We will be making that clear in the guidance that we issue to them. We have no reason to believe, therefore, that applicants should in practice face unreasonable hardship.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I can clarify one point. I was concerned lest the 12-month period be extended, but I was hopeful that it would be shortened.
As I understood the first part of the Minister's speech, he said that the powers were there to enable local authorities to delay payment if they did not have the money in any specific financial year. Therefore, it is a way of juggling their finances in order not to have to make too many mandatory grants at an inconvenient time for them in one financial year.
I understand that, in one sense, the financial control is therefore made easier for local authorities. On the other hand, what about the disabled person? It means that the disabled person may have to wait fully 18
1668
months, if I take the periods mentioned. It seems hard that a disabled person who is entitled to a mandatory grant can have it delayed for the reasons given by the Minister. I am not happy that that is being done in the way the Minister described. However, I take some comfort from what the Minister said when he indicated that that would only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances. If it is made clear to local authorities that it is a highly exceptional procedure—a highly exceptional escape clause for them—then perhaps my alarm is less than it would otherwise have been.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps my noble friend will be able to reword the clause to show that the pro vision will only be used in exceptional circumstances. I had not meant to speak on clause stand part at this point. Because of my suggested groupings some time ago, I thought it would be discussed with Amendment No. 63 and we have dealt with that. However, I am often mistaken.
I share very much the concerns on this point referred to by other Members of the Committee. Perhaps my noble friend will give thought to making clearer the fact that the clause can only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Lucas: We believe the right place to make that clear is in guidance and we will do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Payment of grants: conditions as to contractors employed]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert ("and competition between contractors for grant work will disregard that part of the estimated cost of works attributable to value added tax").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that VAT is not taken into account when comparing estimates from contractors for grant work, thereby removing the competitive advantage enjoyed by companies which are not registered for VAT or are below the threshold for VAT. The Committee will be aware that many tradespeople operating in the sector of the building industry which deals with small-scale repair and maintenance work have a reputation for poor quality work. If the quality of work and the level of client satisfaction are to increase, it will be necessary to make it more difficult for cowboy builders, as they are called, to operate. Currently an application for renovation grant must have at least two estimates. That is repeated in the Bill. Grant is payable on the lower figure, subject to limits. VAT is not given special consideration so that two contractors can put in identical prices but it is the one not registered for VAT who will get the contract.
The current arrangements for awarding grant work effectively provide a competitive advantage to such firms. For instance, Bradford estimates that approximately 15 to 20 per cent. of all accepted tenders for renovation grant work are from VAT unregistered firms. There is a general feeling that firms that are not VAT registered are at the margins of being reputable, if

1669
I may put it in the most polite manner. The Building Employers' Confederation has therefore proposed that VAT be discounted from tenders for renovation grant work when considering the lowest tender for the work. If the amendment is accepted, that will protect reputable VAT registered building firms from undercutting. I hope very much that the Government will consider the proposal and give a considered response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment as my name on the Marshalled List will show. I do so partly because I want to check on the position of local authorities in this matter. Local authorities are in a special position as regards VAT but, because this is a grant to an applicant and it is the applicant's payment of a bill, I assume that that special position for VAT purposes will not apply. If that is so, it is quite right that VAT should be taken out of the equation.
I realise that my point may be a little esoteric and that it may be one on which the noble Lord will wish to write to me unless he has some details in his brief relating to it. I believe that the proposal is a fair, practical and appropriate one, and I support it.
Lord Lucas: I wish immediately to dissociate myself from the aspersions which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, cast upon the VAT unregistered, many of whom I count among my closest friends. By and large I think they are as honourable as any other sector of the business community. That said, I share the noble Lord's concern that contractors who are required to submit estimates inclusive of VAT should not be disadvantaged in competition with smaller contractors who are not registered for VAT and who are able to provide lower estimates. However, as the noble Lord will realise, these matters are not simple because people who are not registered for VAT pay it and cannot reclaim it and therefore incur higher costs than people who are registered for VAT in some elements of their costs. It is not a simple equation. One cannot just take the 17.5 per cent. However, I shall give further thought to the matters raised and how best they may be achieved and will return to the noble Lord in one fashion or another before Report. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful for the fact that the noble Lord has grasped the problem. I am sure that his friends are very reputable but there are other people who are not so reputable. However, in the light of the assurance that the noble Lord and the department will look at the matter and that he will return to it in some fashion before the Report stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Change of circumstances affecting disabled occupant]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 26, line 5, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Repayment where applicant not entitled to grant]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 26, line 37, at end insert ("(or, in the case of a joint application, any of the applicants)").
The noble Earl said: King Lear appears again! In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 76. Amendments Nos. 75 and 77, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are also grouped with these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 allow the authorities to recover grant from joint applicants where any of the applicants are shown not to be entitled to grant at the time of application. Clause 46, as at present drafted, provides that in the case of a joint application the clause applies only where none of the applicants was entitled to grant; in other words, the authority can stop and recover grant.
The reason for bringing forward these amendments is that where one of the joint applicants is later discovered not to have been eligible for grant—for example, because he has too much money which he did not declare—the relevant means test assessment would have been wrong, with the likely result that too much grant would have been approved or paid. We believe that if that happens it ought to be possible to recover the grant, or any instalment of it which might have already been paid, in accordance with Clause 46(2). The application can then be re-determined. These amendments remove a potential loophole which would have prevented authorities from recovering grant where an applicant was shown not to have been entitled to grant. I hope that the Committee will agree that these amendments are an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl, King Lear, for explaining the government amendments. I would like to concentrate on Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 which are in this group. Amendment No. 75 is designed to ensure the recovery of grant aid where an applicant has withheld information or has given false information for the purposes of the means test. That is followed consequentially by Amendment No. 77 and the two together have the purpose which I have described.
Under the proposals in the Bill, owner-occupiers and tenants applying for renovation grant or disabled facilities grant, will be means tested by the local housing authority to determine what contribution, if any, they must make to the cost of the works. The amount of grant to be approved will be reduced, if necessary, following means testing in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.

1671
As I understand it, the same arrangements apply under the present grant régime. Where an owner occupier or tenant has been assessed by the Benefits Agency and is in receipt of income support, under the present régime he is passported through the means test by the local housing authority and will not make any contribution to the works eligible for grant.
Assuming that the same arrangements will apply under the proposed grant regime, provision needs to be made for situations where a person was wrongly in receipt of income support and should instead have been subjected to a means test. The proposed grant regime is intended to target limited resources at those most in need. We believe that enhancing the ability of local housing authorities to recover grant paid in excess of the amount to which the applicant was entitled will assist in maximising the use of limited resources.
I have no particular comment to make on the government amendments, but I would welcome a general response from the Minister on the problem that I have outlined when speaking to Amendments Nos. 75 and 77.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will share with me and the Committee the roles in which they cast other Members of the Committee. I would not care to play some characters in King Lear.
Earl Ferrers: In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say only that I was so enormously gratified to be elevated to the rank of King that I did not consider into what roles other noble Lords might be slotted. However, the noble Baroness need not worry her head about that; let her just think of me as a king and she will be all right.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he had no comment to make on my amendments. I thought that that was something of a brush-off because I thought that they were good amendments and I had hoped that the noble Lord would say that they were excellent amendments with which he could concur. The noble Lord did not say that, but I have said it for him. Perhaps, therefore, I may now turn to his amendments, Amendments Nos. 75 and 77, which he was good enough to describe.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to enable Clause 46 to be applied to the situation where an applicant was not entitled to a grant of the amount which he was awarded but may have been entitled to a grant of a different amount. Clause 46 as it stands applies only to the situation where an applicant was not entitled to any grant. On the face of it, therefore, the amendment seems to cover a situation which is not covered in the Bill and which could be desirable. I should like to consider that point and to deliberate on precisely what the Bill should say on that matter.
Amendment No. 77 enables the authority to stop and to recover payment of the excess grant where the applicant deliberately has given false information or withheld information in order to gain the excess grant.
1672
In our view, if Clause 46 were to be amended as the noble Lord suggests, an authority would be empowered to stop and recover the excess grant by virtue of the provisions in the remainder of the clause. So far as concerns the specific situations which this amendment covers—deliberately giving false information or withholding information—common law remedies ought no doubt to be able to be relied on. Also, the amendment appears to cover much of the ground already covered by subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 46. Therefore, on the face of it, Amendment No. 77 may be unnecessary.
I should like to give further thought to both of those amendments and, if appropriate, I shall return to the matter on Report. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. I know that he is easily satisfied and I know of no reason why he should not be satisfied with that reply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am easily satisfied by ministerial announcements that the Government will consider my amendments and return on Report with, we hope, their own appropriate amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking on board those important points and, in the light of what he said, I do not intend to move my amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I commend Amendment No. 74 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, leave out lines 40 and 41.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Grant conditions: introductory]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 28, line 11, leave out from ("consent") to end of line 12.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 261, 262 and 269. The amendments have various purposes. Amendments Nos. 78 and 86 give Clause 55 a condition period of its own rather than it having to depend on Clause 47 for one. Amendment No. 80 ensures that, where someone inherit; a property, he is not required to repay a grant that has been given on it but if he disposes of the property within the repayment condition period he will have to repay it.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, Clause 53 describes the occupancy conditions attached to an HMO grant. Subsection (1)(b) requires that the house is not occupied so as to cause a breach of any direction relating to the number of occupants. Amendment No. 83 adds to that subsection a duty to keep the premises fit for the number of occupants. The amendment is consequential on a new duty introduced in the Housing Bill, which is presently in another place. Amendment No. 84 is a drafting amendment to take account of Amendment No. 83. Amendment No. 87 adds to the descriptions of disposals that are exempt

1673
from the repayment condition a disposal by way of enfranchisement, or lease extension, under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The 1993 Act is already included. Amendments Nos. 261, 262 and 269 share the intention of making it clear that the savings of the 1989 Act can be made under other orders as well as the commencement orders for this legislation. This proposal is intended to ensure that the transitional provisions for those who have applied for a grant under the 1989 Act can work fully, thus protecting grant applicants' interests. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: On the whole, we are happy to agree the amendment and hope that the Committee will accept it. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the Committee exactly what provision in the Housing Bill in another place requires an amendment to this particular Bill.
Lord Lucas: I am afraid that off the cuff I cannot give an answer, but I will happily write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Condition for repayment on disposal: renovation grants]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("with the consent of the Secretary of State") and insert ("where the local housing authority see fit").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 79 and shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 115. The purpose of these amendments is to give the local authority discretion as to when to waive repayment or demand lesser repayment in the case of a renovation grant, HMO grant and a common parts grant. Clauses 48 to 50 provide that, when the owner of a dwelling has received assistance in the form of a renovation grant or an HMO grant or, in the case of a common parts grant, the applicant on a landlord's application makes a relevant disposal other than an exempt disposal, grant conditions apply from the date of approval until five years from the date of grant completion, requiring repayment to the local housing authority on demand of the amount of grant that has been paid. Apart from exempt disposals, as defined by Clause 57, the only general exception will arise where an elderly or infirm owner makes a disposal with the intention of moving into sheltered accommodation or care, or where an owner is moving in in order to care for an elderly or infirm member of the family.
The requirement to repay grant if the property is disposed of within five years in our view is somewhat onerous and may deter applications and, ultimately, impede improvement. That will be of particular consequence in housing renewal areas. The grant condition period needs also to be seen in conjunction with other conditions imposed in order to qualify for grant assistance; namely, the three-year residency pre-qualifying period. I understand that the Government will introduce amendments to the three-year residency pre-qualifying period, so I shall not insist on that.
1674
Nevertheless, the proposal will make the workforce less mobile, and, in general, we believe that there should be a greater discretion for local authorities to waive repayment or to judge what lesser repayment is necessary, as they wish.
Amendment No. 115 has as its purpose to remove the Secretary of State's power to determine what action it is reasonable for local authorities to take in recovering repayments of grant. I do not want to go through all the arguments because they are those I advanced on the previous amendments. But a local authority at the moment has a duty to recover grant payments made on property when that property is sold within a specified period. Authorities also have a discretion to waive grant clawback provisions under certain circumstances. There are problems with that, and I do not want to go on about negative equity and all the rest of it.
The reasonable steps to be taken by a local authority to retrieve grant clawback should be established at the discretion of the local authority, not by the Secretary of State. So the amendments to which I am speaking, and the amendment which I am moving, increase the power of a local authority to determine its own future and its own ability to act in this sphere. I believe that it is within the thrust of the Bill to allow local authorities to determine what they should do and what they should not do, rather than have the Secretary of State sitting on top of them. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Of the four amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken, perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82. We believe it to be a matter of principle that, where a householder or a landlord receives public money for a specific purpose—in this case, to enable the householder to continue living in his home, or the landlord to improve a property for letting—he should repay that money if the purpose for which he received the grant no longer applies. It should not be possible, therefore, to use the grant merely to increase the grant applicant's profit on the sale of the improved property. It would not be reasonable to require repayment for an indefinite period, as the benefits from the grant-aided repairs and improvements will diminish as time goes by. We believe five years to be a reasonable period for a condition requiring repayment on disposal to apply.
There are, of course, circumstances beyond the control of the grant applicant which may cause him to dispose of the property within the condition period. The most common of these are allowed for in the exempt disposals in Clause 57 and the local authority's discretion under Clause 48(5) not to demand repayment in certain circumstances. In most other cases where there is a disposal of the property within the condition period, a decision not to demand repayment will need very careful consideration.
We accept that there are cases where it would not be appropriate to demand repayment of grant from the applicant. For this reason, each of the clauses setting out the conditions for repayment of grant on disposal of the grant-aided property contains a provision allowing the local authority to decide whether a case should be made

1675
for the waiver of a demand for repayment or for demanding a lesser amount with the consent of the Secretary of State.
The need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent gives an opportunity to decide under which circumstances the demand for repayment should be waived and to ensure that the same criteria are applied in each case. It also gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State to consider whether, in the light of the cases referred to him, he should use his powers under Clause 57 to add to the descriptions of exempt disposals under that clause. These amendments would remove the necessity for the Secretary of State's consent. For the reasons that I have given that would be undesirable.
I turn to Amendment No. 115. Local housing authorities may claim an Exchequer subsidy of 60 per cent. of what they spend on grants under Part I. Therefore, for each of the grant payments reclaimed, the local authority will have received Exchequer subsidy. The Secretary of State is accountable for all subsidy payments made to local authorities in respect of this legislation. He is required to apply conditions which are fair to all authorities concerned and to safeguard public money.
Where an authority receives a repayment of some or all of the grant in respect of which Exchequer subsidy was paid it is fair and proper that the subsidy element of the amount recovered should be repaid to the Exchequer, together with an appropriate percentage of any interest received by the authority. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to see that this happens.
Amendment No. 115 would have the effect of preventing the Secretary of State from requiring payment in respect of any part of the interest that would have been received had the local authority taken reasonable steps to recover the grant. It would also remove the Secretary of State's power to determine what steps would be reasonable.
Where recovery is not made because of the negligence of the local authority, it is fair and proper that that authority should have to meet the same repayment requirement as other authorities which have carried out their duties more diligently.
In the interests of parity of treatment between local authorities nationally, we also believe it to be right that the Secretary of State should have the power to determine what steps would be reasonable.
I believe that the clause as drafted ensures fair treatment for all local authorities. I hope that on consideration the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will realise that the Bill is better than it would be were his amendments applied to it.
Lord Monkswell: Although I support my noble friend Lord Williams, I believe that we must respond to the Government's reply. The Minister said that the Government will not allow local authorities a discretion as to whether to waive the right to reclaim grant that has been paid. We must explore the Government's thinking as regards the consents which are likely to be
1676
forthcoming from the Secretary of State. Have the Government appreciated the change in the housing market and the employment scene during the past five or 10 years?
Perhaps I may give an example in order to ascertain the Minister's response. I take the case of a person on low income who made an application for a grant, improved his property and then lost his job in city A. He found another job in city B 100 miles away and also found a house at almost exactly the same price as his own and to the same standard. Will that person be permitted to retain the full value of the house that he is leaving in order to enable him to purchase the house into which he is moving or will the Secretary of State require repayment of the grant, which will force the person to move into a house of a lower standard?
We should bear in mind that the house has been improved and will stay as part of the local authority's housing stock. Therefore, the local authority and the local community will have the benefit of any improvement but the person leaving the house will not have that benefit. Because of the repayment of grant which might be demanded, he will effectively be required to purchase a property of a standard lower than that which he was used to living in.
Earl Ferrers: It is always difficult to set down specific standards and to have a general discretion to disapply the recovery of grant because there are so many variables.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, makes is quite straightforward. The value of the house of the person who has obtained the grant will have increased. If he then moves to another area, the noble Lord says that it is unfair if he must pay back his grant. But the fact is that the house will be worth more than it would have been worth had he not had the grant. Therefore, theoretically, he will be left with the same amount of money with which he started in order to purchase a house somewhere else.
Lord Williams of Elvel: What if it is worth less?
Earl Ferrers: The simple answer is that it will be very difficult for him. But the purpose of obtaining a grant is to enable the house to be improved. Whether the house is worth more or less depends on the state of the market and nothing else. However, I believe that it is reasonable to say that that part of the money which has formed part of the grant should be repaid because theoretically the person is left with the same amount of money that he had in the first place in order to purchase a house elsewhere.
I do not deny for one moment that in various places the shoe may pinch. However, if every conceivable eventuality is allowed for, one finds that a great deal of abuse takes place.
Lord Monkswell: But I suggest that that is rather unfair. This will be a low income household. I assure the Committee that it is quite a palaver to obtain a grant. You have to make the application, engage builders to provide estimates and so on. It can consume an

1677
enormous part of one's life. Is the Minister saying that such a person should then have to go through the whole process again if he moves house?
Perhaps I may suggest a mechanism to solve the problem. One may set limits in terms of the market movements which one may expect which are acceptable or not acceptable as regards repayment of grant. The applicant's current financial circumstances should be compared with what they were before. Criteria should be set which could be applied. Everybody would then see those to be reasonable. But I am sure that the Minister will agree that, in the case which I mentioned, it would be unreasonable for an applicant to be required to repay the grant.
Earl Ferrers: I do not deny at all that one must comply with rules and regulations and that it involves a certain amount of palaver to obtain a grant. That is so. The situation which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, postulates may raise sympathies because one thinks of an unfortunate person who has bought a house, obtained a grant, finds he is without a job and then has to find a job elsewhere and pay back the grant.
On the other hand, what if the unfortunate fellow bought a house, obtained a grant and then got fed up with his wife and decided to go and live with "Fifi" in the county next door? In that situation he would sell the house, claim the money that he had got from the grant and go to live in more luxurious conditions with "Fifi" which would be quite inappropriate. One can always find curious examples, but one really has to rely on the basic principle that, if a person receives a grant for a certain house and then sells it, it is only fair that he should pay back the grant.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl has given us a most interesting run around the circumstances in which people may wish to move house. I still believe that it is really up to the local authority to decide such matters rather than the Secretary of State. Of course when we say the "Secretary of State" we are actually referring to the wording in the Bill, whereas what we mean is the Department of the Environment and its bureaucracy which may or may not be efficient and which may or may not take into account particular circumstances such as those described by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. Nevertheless, we have had a reasonable debate on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 29, line 22, leave out from ("intestacy)") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 78. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Condition for repayment on disposal: common parts grants]:
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Condition for repayment on disposal: HMO grants]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Conditions as to occupation: HMO grants]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 31, line 42, after ("cause") insert ("—

(i) a breach of the duty under section 353A of the Housing Act 1985 (duty to keep premises fit for number of occupants), or

(ii)")

Page 31, line 44, leave out ("the Housing Act 1985") and insert ("that Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Power to impose other conditions with consent of Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 33, line 10, leave out from ("date") to ("and") in line 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Meaning of exempt disposal]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 34, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) a disposal by way of enfranchisement or lease extension under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 37, line 49, column 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections (Meaning of "owner" of dwelling) and").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93 and 118 to 120. The group consists of an amendment adding after Clause 97 a revised definition of "owner" and various consequential amendments to include references to that definition. The definition of owner in the Bill was reproduced from the current legislation and refers to the "net annual value" of a property. That reference has its roots in the old rating system but has acquired an established meaning outside that system. To ensure clarity, we seek to add the established definition of "net annual value" to the grants legislation. The amendment makes no change to the substance of the measures. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Qualifying buildings]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 39, line 14, leave out from ("prepared") to end of line 21 and insert—

("(a) it comprises a minimum of two houses,

(b) the houses in the building are adjacent to each other,

(c) the exterior of at least 75 per cent. of the houses in the building is not in reasonable repair.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 89 stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 90.
The purpose of Amendment No. 89 is to permit group repair schemes in a wider range of circumstances than is currently allowed, covering a single pair of semi-detached houses to a whole street of terraced housing, provided that at least three-quarters are in disrepair externally.
Group repair schemes were first introduced in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to enable groups of mainly privately owned houses to be renovated externally in order to put them in good repair. The concept is based on that of envelope schemes, which were successfully used by local housing authorities in the 1980s.
Many authorities appear to have been reluctant fully to pursue group repair schemes due to the restrictive criteria specified in the 1989 Act and associated Department of Environment guidance notes and circulars. We believe that the provision is an important element—it is not vital—in improving the group repair schemes.
Amendment No. 90 also extends the scope of group repair schemes, in this case to include structural instability in the range of external defects which can be repaired. The amendment is intended to create greater flexibility in delivering strategic renovation programmes through group repair schemes. I hope that the Government will be aware of the problems faced by group repair schemes and by local authorities trying to operate them and will be sympathetic to the amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I think that I can assure the noble Lord that we are aware of the problems of group repair schemes and sympathetic towards the aim underlying the amendment: to simplify the eligibility rules and definitions of a group repair scheme. That is our intention, too, and we have framed the current clauses on group repair in such a way as to leave the detailed rules and conditions to be prescribed in regulations. We think that that is a better approach, as it gives more flexibility and enables the rules to be changed if, in the light of experience, they turn out not to achieve the objective required. It also gives us the opportunity to consult local authority practitioners on the regulations.
1680
While I disagree with the proposal in Amendment No. 89 to place some simplified conditions on the face of the Bill, I would go along with some of the simplifications which the amendment makes. For example, we propose to remove the need for all the buildings in a scheme to be "contiguous or adjacent" to the primary qualifying building, and we propose to review the number of dwellings in a scheme. But we also intend to make some changes which are not mentioned by the amendment. For example, we would like to include certain types of purpose-built flats.
Under Amendment No. 90 it would become a requirement that group repair schemes ensure that buildings were made substantially free from instability. I do not believe that there is any difference between the noble Lord and myself on the principle that it would be stupid to put public funds into any building which is liable to collapse. However, the amendment itself is unnecessary. The Bill provides various ways of ensuring that a building is stable. Clause 65(1)(a) enables an authority to include the necessary works in a group repair scheme, and that may well be the usual way of proceeding when such schemes are being undertaken. But a quite common alternative approach is for group repair schemes to be undertaken at the same time as other works, to make a building fit. In those kinds of cases, it may well be more appropriate to pay for stabilisation works through a renovation grant. The Bill as it stands provides flexibility for authorities which the amendment might reduce.
Our intentions are similar to those of the noble Lord and I hope he will perceive that what we are trying to do is what he is trying to achieve and it is accomplished by what is already in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Did I understand the noble Earl to say that what I am trying to achieve in Amendment No. 89 would be achieved by regulation? I thought he said that he was sympathetic and it would all be achieved by regulation. Did I hear him right?
Earl Ferrers: I said in regard to Amendment No. 89 that I went along with the idea of placing simplified conditions on the face of the Bill. We propose to remove the need for all buildings in the scheme to be contiguous or adjacent. I do not believe that I said that that would be done by regulations, but we have framed the current clauses on group repair in such a way as to leave the detailed rules and detailed conditions to be prescribed in regulations. That is the point about which the noble Lord is concerned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is it right that the Government are not prepared to accept anything on the face of the Bill or am I again mishearing the noble Earl?
Earl Ferrers: It would be hard if the noble Lord were to say that the Government were not prepared to accept anything on the face of the Bill. We believe it is wrong to put the proposals on the face of the Bill because then it becomes too constrained. It is better that that is done by regulations because if the proposals are not correct,

1681
it is possible to amend and alter them by regulations in a way which would not be possible if it had to be done by primary legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. As I understand it, the thrust of my amendment, Amendment No. 89, is accepted by the Government but it will be implemented by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill. I am grateful for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I was hoping for clarification of the reference to instability in Amendment No. 90. The Minister suggested that it was covered by works to the exterior of the building. Will he give me clarification that the "exterior of the building" will include the foundations of the building? It is a technical point, but in some interpretations of the phrase the foundations beneath the building might not be considered to be part of the exterior. I hope that the Minister can clarify that because it would provide a degree of security in the implementation of programmes to correct any instability that might be apparent.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 65(1)(b) states that:
"The works specified in a group repair scheme must be … so far only as may be necessary to give satisfactory effect to such works, additional works to other parts of the buildings".
The foundations will be covered by that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Scheme works]:
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Approval of scheme by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Condition as to payment of balance of cost on disposal]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 43, leave out line 21 and insert—
("(b) in such other cases as they may specify,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to seek to remove or modify the period following completion of a group repair during which participants who move home will be required to pay back the balance of the cost paid by the local authority. That is rather a complicated purpose; nevertheless the amendment seeks to allow local authorities to waive the requirement to repay costs. Again, it is a question of giving local authorities discretion in such cases as they may specify to waive the costs. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment would give local authorities discretion to specify cases in which the requirement is waived that an assisted participant in a
1682
group repair scheme must pay on demand the difference between the cost of the works to his property and the amount he has already paid towards that cost if he disposes of the property before the end of the five-year protected period.
The noble Lord's amendment would replace a provision enabling authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent for such waivers. The Bill already provides for certain disposals not to trigger this requirement and gives local housing authorities discretion not to demand payment or to demand a lesser amount in certain cases when the condition is breached. These include the case where the person is elderly or infirm and is moving back in order to be cared for by somebody else, or where he is himself moving to look after an elderly or infirm relative.
We recognise the concern among local authorities that the requirement to pay the balance of the cost might deter some people from joining a group repair scheme if they were uncertain as to whether they could meet the conditions. It might mean that some schemes would no longer be viable. We want to encourage authorities to take a strategic approach to renewal. Group repair is a useful instrument for strategic action, so we need to take seriously the concern that Clause 72, as it stands, might undermine the effectiveness of that instrument.
The noble Lord's amendment would give local authorities a great deal of discretion not to insist on the repayment condition. But the discretion would be limited to cases which are specified by authorities. Each authority would therefore need to draw up and approve a list of cases to which it might then have to keep adding new hardship cases as they arose. That seems rather cumbersome.
An alternative approach would be to give an open discretion which allowed authorities to treat each case on its merits. That would seem more flexible. If the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be good enough, I should like to consider the matter further and see how we can best resolve the problem. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I give an undertaking that I will look at it further between now and the next stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter II].
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 45, line 12, column 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections (Meaning of "owner" of dwelling) and").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Home repair assistance]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 45, line 29, after ("works") insert—

("(a) to an elderly or disabled owner or tenant of a dwelling, of repair, improvement or adaptation;

(b) to adapt a dwelling to enable an elderly or disabled person who is not an owner or a tenant of the dwelling but who is or proposes to be resident in the dwelling to be cared for; or

(c) for other works").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall at the same time speak to Amendment No. 100. Grouped with the two amendments are Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, 99, 101 and 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; Amendment No. 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel; and Amendment No. 103 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
The purpose of Amendment No. 94 is to ensure that the grant for home repair assistance is available for staying put, as is the: minor works assistance which it replaces. The home repair assistance grant replaces the minor works assistance, which was introduced in Part VIII of the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, which is repealed by the Bill.
The purposes for which the grant was available was specified in the legislation. They included works to enable people over 60 years of age to stay put in their homes and to adapt a property to enable a person over that age to move into it to receive care. The grant was of particular use to older people in enabling them to remain living in the community, either in their own homes or with carers. In 1994, I understand that the Department of the Environment estimated that nearly nine out of 10 recipients of the grant were over 60.
The purposes for which minor works assistance was available are not specifically stated in the new provisions for home repair assistance. That may lead to works enabling older people to stay put or receive care being given less priority by local authorities. The amendment is intended to ensure that those purposes are specifically included in the Bill.
Older people consistently state their preference to remain in their own homes as they get older and government policy recognises that. The intention of care in the community legislation is to ensure that those people who require care or support should be able to receive it in their own home. Minor works assistance has been an important contribution to that policy and it is important that it should continue.
The amendment extends the provisions for older people so that they would also apply to disabled people. For many disabled people minor works will be of assistance in enabling them to remain in their own home or will enable them to receive care or support in another home. Where only minor works are required for this purpose, the home repair assistance grant may be more appropriate than the disabled facilities grant, which often requires an
1684
occupational therapist's assessment for which there can, as already mentioned this evening, be very lengthy delays.
Amendment No. 100 seeks to ensure that local authorities can give home repair assistance grants to older and disabled people who require them in order to stay put in their homes but who have not lived in their property for three years. It is very similar to the previous amendment but enables those who have only just moved into a house to stay put. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should mention to the Committee that as Amendment No. 95 is also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 95 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 inclusive.
Lord Dubs: I should like to refer briefly to a number of the amendments which are grouped together. Amendment No. 95 is similar to Amendment No. 94 but it contains two additional provisions. It covers thermal insulation and the possibility of grants for buildings located in a clearance area.
Amendment No. 96 seeks to enable local authorities to continue to fund patch and mend grants for dwellings subject to clearance action. The difficulty is that when a house is in a clearance area it tends to become dilapidated and the conditions for the persons living in such a house can be intolerable. The idea is that local authorities should be able to provide small sums of money, for example, to ensure that a property is wind and weather proof, so that tiles may be replaced on a leaking roof or other such items, enabling the persons living in such a house to live in reasonably tolerable conditions until the clearance date comes along.
Amendment No. 98 is rather different. It seeks to ensure that the limit on home repair assistance is uprated annually in line with inflation. That would seem to be a fair proposition. I accept that the RPI may not be the best index for these purposes, as it may not specifically reflect prices in the building industry. It may therefore be appropriate to use another index which is more closely linked to building and construction work. The important thing is that there should be some form of index linking to ensure that the value of the grant is maintained whatever the level of inflation.
Amendment No. 99 is concerned with the residence requirement in subsection (4) of the clause. The principle should be that home repair assistance should be available to those who have lived in their home for less than three years. It may well be that people who are declining in health may move to a smaller and more manageable property and it would be difficult for them to have to wait three years before they could qualify for the grant. It seems to me that it would not be right that somebody should have to wait three years simply because that seems to be a reasonable length of time in which to establish that they are living in their new property. When people's health is in decline, they may be prompted to move to a smaller or more manageable house or flat. The intention behind the amendment is that the three-year limit should not apply in such cases.

1685
Amendment No. 100 concerns lead piping. I have the privilege of serving on Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee. We recently produced a report on lead in drinking water which I hope will be debated in this Chamber before too long. It is a report on drinking water quality as a whole. One of the conclusions in the report is that it is important significantly to reduce the amount of lead contained in drinking water. Some of the lead comes through pipes owned by the water companies. That is believed to affect around 8.2 million households. In other instances, households themselves have lead in their internal piping, and that is believed to affect around 8.9 million households. The amendment is specifically concerned with people who have lead in their own homes. In hard water areas that situation may not be so serious, but in soft water areas it is clearly a danger to health if there should be any significant quantity of lead in the water supply.
I hope that, when this Chamber debates the report of the Select Committee together with the Government's response, more attention will be focused on the quality of our drinking water and in particular on the lead within it. It therefore seems appropriate, in anticipation of such a debate, that this Bill should contain somewhat better provision to enable people who are not in receipt of state benefits but are on low incomes, to secure grants to enable them to deal with lead piping contained with their homes.
Finally, Amendment No. 102 deals with grants to people who live in houseboats. As the Bill stands, there is a constraint on grants to houseboat owners. It seems to me that as the grant we are discussing is in any case subject to local authority discretion, there is no need to add further constraints. The local authority can make its own judgment as to the risks of abuse in the case of any specific grant. The amendment therefore seeks to make such a grant available provided that,
"the applicant occupies the boat as his only or main residence [and] … the boat is moored on an inland waterway or in marine waters within the boundary of the authority".
That seems to be a sensible move to give houseboat owners the chance of obtaining a grant. I suggest that there are adequate safeguards in the discretion that local authorities can bring to bear in giving such grants.
Lord Lucas: Amendments Nos. 94 and 100 seek to identify elderly and disabled people as specifically eligible for home repair assistance and to provide for their needs separately. However, it was our intention that their needs should be covered in Clause 77(2) and (5). It was our intention to refer to "infirm" rather than "disabled" people to ensure that assistance is available to a wider group. However, given the concern raised by my noble friend, we will give this matter some further thought and revert to him before Report.
1686
Turning to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, home repair assistance builds on the success of minor works assistance and enhances it by increasing its potential availability. It provides for the payment of grants or the provision of materials necessary to carry out works of repair, adaptation or improvement to enable an applicant to remain living in his own home.
This broader description incorporates all the works for which minor works assistance is currently payable, which includes such small scale repairs as suggested by "patch and mend". I believe it is unnecessary as proposed in Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 to have these purposes and works listed separately, as in the current legislation. I can confirm that buildings in clearance areas can get assistance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree with me on that.
Amendment No. 98 seeks to establish an annual increase in the total amount of value of home repair assistance that may be given by linking such an amount or value to the retail prices index. There is already provision in Clause 76 for the rates to be uprated where that is appropriate and I do not believe it would be helpful to have an annual increase.
Amendment No. 99 seeks to remove the prior residency requirement in all cases where the applicant does not have an owner's interest but occupies the property under a right of exclusive occupation for life or more than five years. We believe that the prior residence criteria should apply across the board for this category as they are a protection against potential abuse in the area of non-standard tenancy arrangements. It is relatively easy to establish a grant eligible person in a non-standard tenancy with the aim of securing grant assistance.
Amendment No. 101 would disapply the income related benefit provision for all applications in respect of works to replace lead pipes and apply the test of resources as defined for renovation grants to any applicant. We do not believe this amendment is necessary. Assistance for work to replace lead pipes can already be given to any qualifying applicant in receipt of income related benefits under the present minor works assistance provisions. This is carried forward into the wider purposes of home repair assistance.
I do not believe it would be helpful to introduce help for a wider group of people and use of the main grant means test. This undermines the intended simplicity of the operation of home repair assistance. There will be nothing to prevent those who fall outside the current scope of Chapter III to apply for a discretionary renovation grant.
Amendment No. 102 seeks to remove the three-year qualifying period from an applicant living in a houseboat as his only or main residence and the requirement that his dwelling has been moored during that period at the same mooring and therefore within the same local authority area. Because of the more unusual nature of this type of dwelling, we believe that our proposed conditions of grant should remain, as they represent a safeguard against potential abuse. However, the noble Lord has identified that it is not easy to tie

1687
down a houseboat, as they are by their nature mobile. Therefore, our Amendment No. 103 seeks to overcome the issue of a houseboat's mobility through the use of the wording,
"had as its only or main mooring for that period".
This should deal with the situation where houseboats travel from their mooring for short periods of time, such as weekend trips on the river or holiday boating. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to move his amendment and that he will support others. With those assurances, I hope that the various amendments will, when the time comes, be either withdrawn or not moved.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may comment briefly on a couple of points that the Minister made. I am disappointed that he cannot be more flexible about Amendment No. 97 concerning the three-year qualifying period. It seems to me that that can be pretty harsh on people who have moved house, as I have said. I hope that he will be able to think again on this matter.
As regards linking the level of home repair assistance grant to the retail prices index, the Minister said that it would not be appropriate to make such a link. By not making such a link, one is effectively reducing the maximum level of such a grant because of inflation. I would have thought that the words "not appropriate" are themselves not appropriate, as applied to this concept.
Lord Lucas: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is disappointed concerning Amendment No. 98. I believe that he will have to stay that way. As regards the higher residence criterion, we live in an imperfect world and have to provide for that. If we were to let our guard down on that we believe that we would face a lot of fraud, and that is something up with which we should not put.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his remarks on my two Amendments Nos. 94 and 100. I shall be very happy to discuss them further, if he finds that convenient, between now and the next stage. I shall read what he has said about the other amendment with interest between now and Report stage.
Lord Clark of Kempston: Amendment withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen: Is the noble Lord trying to make a decision for me?
Lord Lucas: Certainly, we shall be discussing this with the noble Lord one way or another.
Lord Swinfen: I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Clark, was trying to intervene, only he addressed the Committee from a sedentary position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 98 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Entitlement to home repair assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Assistance in respect of house-boats and mobile homes]:
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 47, line 13, leave out ("been moored for that period at") and insert ("had as its only or main mooring for that period").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 94. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Deferred action notices]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("is") to (", they") in line 24 and insert ("in the best interests of the occupants").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 105 and 107. With these are grouped Amendments Nos. 106 and 108. Amendment No. 104 refers to Clause 81, the deferred action notices provision. It seeks to ensure that any decision by a local authority to defer taking action on houses unfit for human habitation will only be made if that is in the best interests of the occupants. Concern has been expressed quite widely as to the "do nothing option" as it has been termed. I do not believe that it can be generally appropriate for authorities to delay action on houses which are unfit for human habitation except in circumstances, which are likely to be quite rare, where that would be in the best interests of the occupants. It cannot be right to expect tenants to live in unfit conditions for longer periods.
Amendment No. 105 seeks to ensure that a council takes remedial action to deal with an unfit house in which children are living. The deferred action notice can be renewed indefinitely. The amendment seeks to ensure that remedial action is not deferred or delayed in respect of an unfit property which is occupied by a family including children. I appreciate that this is perhaps not the normal approach to such matters and is perhaps a little out of kilter with the Bill, but it is intended to be a practical approach to the matter.
Finally, Amendment No. 107 seeks to ensure that an occupier of an unfit house has the right of appeal against a deferred action notice. If an unfit property is occupied, the amendment provides for the occupier to be able to challenge the decision in the county court. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I share the concern of the noble Baroness, which is apparent from these amendments, that in deciding whether to serve a deferred action notice a local authority should have regard to relevant circumstances, including the interests of the occupants of the premises.
The term,
"most satisfactory course of action",

1689
used in subsection (1) of Clause 81 follows the standard terminology used for the exercise of notices under the other fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance as defined in the Housing Act 1985. I believe that it is important that we retain that consistency, but I would be concerned if local authorities were restricted in the way sought by these amendments.
Under Clause 85, provision is made for the Secretary of State to give guidance on the most satisfactory course of action in connection with the service of deferred action notices. The Government fully intend to issue such guidance and, by virtue of the terms of Clause 85, it will be guidance to which local authorities will be required to have regard and guidance which will be subject to the usual consultations with the local authority associations and others before it is issued.
That will have the advantage of consistency with the other fitness enforcement options. It also provides for a degree of flexibility that is needed in all areas of fitness enforcement, but a flexibility which will have to be sensibly exercised by local authorities having regard to clear guidance from the Secretary of State. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to be cautious because I do not think that Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 would be successful additions to the Bill.
Amendment No. 107 would broaden the right of appeal against a deferred action notice, conferred under Clause 83, to include any occupier of the premises. The potential effect would be significantly to increase the number of appeals coming before the county courts. That would inevitably increase the burden on already hard pressed courts and on local authorities in dealing with those appeals. I think it entirely right that there should be a right of appeal against any fitness enforcement action. This is why we have included a right of appeal against deferred action notices. But a balance needs to be struck between a right of appeal and broadening it to an extent that could very well impose significant burdens on both the county courts and local authorities.
The right of appeal in the case of a deferred action notice is consistent with that conferred on the other fitness enforcement options. There is, of course, nothing to stop any other occupier of the premises from seeking a judicial review of the service of a deferred action notice. I think that that right, combined with a right of appeal which is conferred by Clause 83, strikes the correct balance, having regard to the burdens which I have mentioned.
Turning to Amendment No. 108, I can understand the desire to have information on the extent to which deferred action notices will be used. On could say the same thing about the other repair, closure and clearance fitness enforcement options. But it is not thought right or consistent to have one requirement on the face of the Bill for deferred action notices when the other options are not covered in the same way. On the other hand, to require local authorities to produce and publish a report in the depth sought by the amendment of the noble Baroness for all the fitness enforcement activities would he an unreasonable and unnecessary burden.
1690
Statistics on local authorities' fitness enforcement activities are already collected by the Department of the Environment and are produced as part of the Government's statistical service. That comes within a publication called Housing and Construction Statistics which is published annually. Future editions of that publication will cover deferred action notices as part of the statistics which the department gathers from local authorities on action that is taken against unfit dwellings. Although they may not cover everything in the amendment, I can assure the noble Baroness that as a minimum the statistics will indicate the number of unfit dwellings against which deferred action notices have been issued.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the Bill is best left as it is without the amendment that she proposes.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister. I take seriously the point that legislation needs to be consistent with earlier parallel provisions, or provisions that might be looked to. I will wish to consider that further. One does not want to add to the burden on the courts, but I am not sure that judicial review as a remedy in place of action that adds to the burden on the hard-pressed county courts wholly advances the argument. However, I do not seek to press the point at his hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 83 [Appeals against deferred action notices]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 86 [Unfitness for human habitation &c: power to improve enforcement procedures]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 50, line 20, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 86 is headed "Power to improve enforcement procedures". It provides that the Secretary of State has power to make an order that a local housing authority shall act as specified in the order. I emphasise "shall" since the amendment seeks to replace that word with "may". The amendment seeks to give local authorities a discretion as to whether or not they make an informal approach before taking action in regard to houses that are declared unfit for human habitation.
There is a danger that this clause, rather than improving the procedures, will make enforcement more difficult by adding another step in the process before the formal issue of an enforcement notice. I am also aware of the flexibility available to local authorities to which the Government have referred on a number of occasions tonight. The Audit Commission, in its report on healthy

1691
housing, found that an informal approach is often ineffective in any event. The amendment gives local authorities the choice as to whether or not to make use of the scheme introduced by the Secretary of State under the clause in the light of their own practical experience. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is grouped with Amendment No. 109. Perhaps I could speak to them both.
Formal enforcement action—I believe that this is something with which we all agree—should always be looked upon as a last step resort. Modifying the procedures of the fitness enforcement options in the way provided for by an order under Clause 86 will help local authorities to reach sensible decisions in consultation with owners and thereby help to ensure formal enforcement action is taken only when necessary.
I therefore see it as important for local authorities to be under a requirement to follow the actions specified in Clause 86. That apart, I cannot see the wisdom in the Secretary of State making an order with local authorities being left to decide whether they follow its provisions.
The concern of the noble Baroness which is apparent in her Amendment No. 109 may not be dissimilar from that apparent in Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams; that is, that there will be circumstances where a local authority will need to take immediate enforcement action and where it would not be appropriate to follow the sort of actions specified in Clause 86(1) to (5). Clearly a local authority should not be precluded from taking immediate action. That is precisely what Clause 86(6) makes provision for. It is cast deliberately in wide terms so that a local authority is not precluded from taking immediate enforcement action in any case where it appears to it to be necessary. We think it only right that local authorities—as the on-the-ground enforcement agents—should have flexibility in this particular instance.
I can see, to quote an example from Amendment No. 110, that imminent risk to the health and safety of occupants might well be a case where a local authority might consider it necessary to take immediate enforcement action. An order under Clause 86 would not preclude a local authority from taking such action if it appeared to it to be necessary; nor, indeed, the other example cited in Amendment No. 110. But there are likely to he other equally important exclusions arising in particular cases which, if the logic of the amendment were followed, would deserve to be included, but whose codification in legislation would prove very difficult as well as inflexible and inappropriate.
1692
I believe that the better approach lies in giving local authorities flexibility in this particular area, as provided for in Clause 86(6). In that way we provide the flexibility needed without removing the value of requiring local authorities to follow the actions specified in the rest of Clause 86. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: Not entirely, but I shall read what the Minister said, and possibly return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leavé, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Recovery of contributions]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Consent of the Secretary of State]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 54, line 40, at end insert ("or in relation to particular cases or descriptions of case.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Fitness for human habitation]:
[Amendment No.117 not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 97, insert the following clause—
MEANING OF "OWNER" OF DWELLING
(".—(1) In this Part "owner", in relation to a dwelling, means the person who—

(a) is for the time being entitled to receive from a lessee of the dwelling (or would be so entitled if the dwelling were let) a rent at an annual rate of not less than two-thirds of the net annual value of the dwelling; and

(b) is not himself liable as lessee of the dwelling, or of property which includes the dwelling, to pay such a rent to a superior landlord.

(2) For this purpose the net annual value of a dwelling means the rent at which the dwelling might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of repair and insurance and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the dwelling in a state to command that rent.
(3) Any dispute arising as to the net annual value of a dwelling shall be referred in writing for decision by the district valuer.
In this subsection "district valuer" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Minor definitions: Part I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120:
Page 56, line 27, leave out from ("dwelling,") to end of line 34 and insert ("has the meaning given by section (Meaning of "owner" of dwelling),").
Page 56, line 35, leave out (""owner"").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Private sector renewal: consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
House resumed.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.